Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[ibegurpard]

1. Re: Kerry

Whether YOU believe it or not, there is a very strong perception out there that he is an unprincipled typical "politician" because of his handling of the Iraq war resolution and thus a resulting anger at him. He is just going to have to deal with that.

[mmm]

2. I have only noticed hostility toward LIEberman

and the reason for that is self evident.

[ibegurpard]

3. Well, that goes without saying.

:puke:

[Pepperbelly]

5. nope ...

I have seen much hostility directed at Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, and Kerry as well.

[NNN0LHI]

19. You and I must be reading the same stuff Pepperbelly n/t

[salin]

64. Agreed

I have seem bombs lobbed at each of those candidates. Sadly I have watched/read "taunting" behavior as well. What a waste of energy.

[Cha]

4. I don't go around "bashing" kerry like some of the kerry backers

who jump on every Dean thread and make snark invested remarks about Dean everytime!

But kerry lost me when he voted "YES" on the Iraqi Resolution!

Meant a lot to me! Might be a kerry supporter if he had voted "NO"!

Now ..a lot of people don't care so he will have their votes but not mine!

[NNN0LHI]

21. Karl Rove thanks you n/t

[Cha]

24. Oh, you think kerry is going to get the nomination?

I hope not but if he does I will Damn sure vote for his ass!

I'm talkin' about the primary...isn't that what we're talkin' about?

[NNN0LHI]

48. I don't really care who wins the primary as long as they can beat Bush

All I am concerned with right now is getting Bush out of office ASAP. That is my only goal. But if I start throwing stones at every Dem candidate who does not fit my own personal preferences right now, all I will be doing is giving ammunition to my adversaries when the big show comes a year from this November. The Republicans are pros at dividing and conquering their opponents, and I am not stupid enough to fall for their crap. If you want to hold that against me that is your prerogative.

Don

[Cha]

70. I don't "hold" anything "against" you!

I'm just stating why I don't like Kerry!

[Eloriel]

57. Well, if you object to people objecting to your boy's vote

Then do the right thing and get him to repudiate that vote. Seems simple to me.

He voted, he can either live with the consequences of ignoring millions of Americans and people all over the world, or he can get right with the people on this issue.

Here's my answer to the original question: I hold EVERYONE who voted for that damned war for responsible for every single death, theirs or ours, and for the devastation, and for the hit to our fiscal health. But of ALL of them, I hold special contempt for Kerry. Why? Because he was a Vietnam war hero who came home to become an anti-Vietnam war hero -- and now he's become one of the types of people he once protested against: an old man who sends young men (and now women) to die in stupid, senseless, pointless wars. And believe me, this one was more stupid and pointless than any before in our history.

And every time I hear him criticizing Bush for not planning for the peace well enough, I am reminded again how utterly gutless and politically expedient and morally bankrupt his vote was, not to mention his insistence on clinging to and defending it.

I'll say it again: I hold him in utter contempt. This war wounded ME, not nearly as much as it has wounded hundreds of thousands of other people around the world, but it wounded me all the same. And it besmirched the reputation of my country, and put another very black mark on her soul.

He and every other war voter owes the American people, the UN, all Iraqis (even including Saddam!!), and all the people of the world a profound, heartfelt apology and restitution in the form of calling unceasingly for Bush's impeachment. None of them will ever get my vote until that happens, and even then it will be very hard to forgive them.

Eloriel

[NNN0LHI]

59. My "boys" vote?

I have not given my support to any candidate. If you can prove otherwise show me where I have. If you can do that I will apologize. If you can't, that proves to me you don't have any idea what you are talking about. End of story.

Don

[Eloriel]

67. Then I apologize to have mixed you up with someone else

HI'll take your word for it -- I don't actually sit here and keep lists of who supports who.

But getting that wrong hardly invalidates what else I have to say. It's not as if they're directly connected after all.

Eloriel

[LWolf]

6. I've noticed hostility from and towards

supporters of more than one candidate. All the candidates seem to have a few hostile people.

I think some of it is campaign strategy; the louder and more often you say your candidate's name the better. The worse the other guys look, the better your guy looks. etc. So bash away.

The rest of it is angry reaction to, and retaliation for the bashing.

[opihimoimoi]

7. There is hardly any hostility, most of it is faux by people with

ultior motives, I have to strongly suspect.

Its to divide and conquer

[WillyT]

8. Good Question Pete !!!

I'm wondering that as well. And as I said, when Tinoire came under swift attack the other day...

"While I know what Republican partisans are capable of in their quest for power, I am now just coming to realize that I don't know what Democratic partisans are capable of in their quest!!!

Time, and this message board, will tell!!!"

So, I guess were gonna see,soon enough, if the left implodes upon itself. I'm hoping we've learned NOT to let that happen again!!!

:shrug:

[Pepperbelly]

9. Give me a break ...

A bashing thread and partisans came to the defense of their guy.

See, even here on a thread dedicated to peace, there seems to be no escape.

[WillyT]

15. Break Given...

I was refering to the possibilty of organized efforts by political campaigns to "Rat Fuck" other campaigns within the SAME political party.

I was not referring to the rough and tumble between various candidate supporters here at DU.

Although I do find it curious that for some, it's far more difficult to articulate the positive reasons for supporting their particular candidate, than it is for them to tear down the candidates of others.

IMHO of course.

Peace!

[Pepperbelly]

17. It seems to be rampant here ...

and I, for one, wish that it was not.

I can give postive reasons all day long why my candidate should be supported but when I give positives, all I get are sharp-shooting, sarcastic posts asserting stuff that is, charitably, arguable at best, and then a quick descent to name calling and high fiving among the chosen.

And peace to you as well.

As far as rat fucking goes, it is going many ways here.

[prolesunited]

10. I agree

It is possible to discuss candidates and issues without the hostility and invective that I have seen here in recent weeks. The people who post here are intelligent enough to know the difference between a productive debate and a destructive argument.

I think there are a lot of people here -- myself included -- who are looking at a couple of candidates but have not committed to a single individual. The divisiveness here does nothing to help us make up our minds. Why can't people discuss the merits of their candidate and quit the flame-throwing?

In addition, after the primaries are over, we HAVE to come together to put whoever the Dem candidate is in office. If our hostility has alienated us from one another, how are we are going to be able to work together to reclaim our country and democracy?

Before you attack another candidate, please take a minute to consider what is REALLY at stake here. At this point, I don't think it's hyperbole to saw that the very fate of the world rests in our hands -- and we're going to waste our energy on trifling diatribes?!?!

[LWolf]

14. Well stated.

Discuss the merits. No flame-throwing. No alienating the rest of the people we'll need to take down bush in the general election.

Productive debate. This is a concept I can embrace!

[lcordero]

11. from my perspective

Here is why.
In the last few years I have seen elected dems constantly failing when we absolutely need them(Iraq massacre vote and Patriot Act vote for starters). I happen to be VERY angry and I will not cut anybody a break for any of this(and yes this would have included Wellstone).

not reducing the budget for the DoD are codewords for "Bush and I have the same buddies and the patterns of abuse will continue".

Balancing the budget means that "I will raise taxes on the poor and the working class and cut services that they have already paid for".

[oasis]

12. It's the "flawless messiah" syndrome. Our guy is pure, yours is not.

nyah, nyah, nyah.

[Cha]

16. Nope! I've seen other Dean Supporters and myself say that

Dean is Not perfect. Dean is an energetic political force and he makes mistakes but he tries to correct them and he great interaction with his supporters!

[oasis]

30. All 9 candidates have some flaws, but I can find something to like

in all of them. One could support Dean, DK, Gephardt or Clark easily without trashing Kerry.

I go after Lieberman because he continues to distort the message of real Democrats.

GWB is my number one target.

[Cha]

35. I don't trash kerry like some of the kerry supporters get on Dean

threads and bash him constantly! It du riguer!

I know why I don't support kerry...I don't have to get on every thread and freakin' say it over and over and over again.

[oasis]

43. I don't usually post on or read Dean threads so I'll take your word

that there exists a "constant bashing" by Kerry supporters. While,on occassion I do defend Kerry on "Kerry" threads, I don't see where a "tit for tat" flamefest accomplishes anything.

[Cha]

49. That's why I don't do it!

I'm just always defending Dean! Good practice though!

[leftofthedial]

13. we've been trained as American media consumers

that every contest is like an athletic competition--"the big game" mentality

that there is only one winner and that winning is the most important thing

that the only thing as good as excelling oneself is tearing down one's opponent

That it is "us" or "them"


there is a small fringe of the candidate bashing that is carried out by narruw-issue zealots, but largely, it is adolescent pep rally crap gone awry

[Walt Starr]

18. Well, Kerry has pissed me off a couple of different ways

1) Iraq war vote. This one puts blood on Kerry's hands. In fact, there are four candidates who have blood on their hands.

2) Telling me to "move on" over the 2000 election theft. I will NEVER move on and I will NEVER get over it.

That said, a Lieberman nomination means I walk away from the Democratic Party. I will not compromise on this. Lieberman is completely unacceptale and the way he's positioning himself he may as well be a Republican.

A Kerry, Edwards, or Gephardt nomination means I will be officially "undecided" and will remain that way until I enter the voting booth. I will not commit to any of these three, so working for their campaigns would be out of the question. Bush is not an option, but I don't know if I'm willing to throw my vote away to a Democrat with blood on his hands.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

22. Personal attack notwithstanding,

That is not what I said. I will never support Lieberman as he is a Bush in Democrat's clothing.

Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt sure do sound Bushlike to me because they voted to give carte blanche to Bush.

I'm not voting for Bush OR A DEMOCRAT WHO ACTS LIKE BUSH!

[prolesunited]

23. Walt, I truly enjoy your posts for the most part

But I think you're missing the whole point of Pete's post. It wasn't an invitation to bring the debate on, it was to tone it down and then his thread turns into what he is advocating we avoid.

I know you have very strong feelings and I enjoy your passion, but take a minute to think about the message here.

[ibegurpard]

25. He was asking WHY the hostility towards some candidates.

And he is being given answers.

[prolesunited]

26. Well, I saw something different in his words apparently

But I gotta run to work now.

Peace!

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

28. I was asked WHY I may be hostile to some candidates

I gave valid answers as to WHY I am hostile towards Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman.

[leftofthedial]

29. It's not a personal attack

It is an anlysis of what you wrote.

If the Dem doesn't meet your personal litmus test, you'll behave in a manner that helps Bush to be reselected.

Personally, I don't like any of the candidates anywhere near as much as I like Kucinich, but damned if I'll help Bush maintain power.

I will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate, because that is the ONLY way to get Bush out of office.

I love this country more than I love any single political issue.

[Walt Starr]

32. That assumes any of the bloody four stands a chance against Bush

I don't agree with that assumption. I honestly do not believe that any of the bloody four can beat him, Liberman especially.

Again, the choice is the Democratic Party's to make as a whole. If the Democratic PArty does not choose to my liking, I am free to walk away, which I will.

Saying that makes me a Bush supporter IS a personal attack.

[leftofthedial]

86. no one said Walt would vote for Bush

Not voting for the Democratic nominee does in effect aid Bush's reselection.

Frankly, I think any of the NINE would clean Shitforbrains's clock in a real election. But you can't beat the media, Diebold, state and local corruption, apathy, and all the lefty puritans who cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[leftofthedial]

102. you paraphrased me inaccurately

you claimed I called Walt Starrr a Bush supporter AND you claim I said he would vote for Bush. I did neither.

"calling someone a Bush supporter is a personal attack here
You know "

I said the result of his stated plan for voting would aid Bush's reselection. NOT the same thing at all. And you accused me of lying twice now.

[JVS]

103. Ok, maybe you were just mistaken.

But you did say that Bush was Walt's number 2 choice, or something to that effect, right? I forget the exact phrasing of your post because it was deleted, thus lending suppory to my theory that it was indeed a personal attack. If one says Bush was his #2 choice, it would not be an error to infer that the person would support Bush. If that isn't a good inference please explain to me why calling Bush Walt's #2 choice does not justify the inference. If I were to say that pepsi is my number 2 choice after coke, it would be very reasonable to assume that I am willing to buy pepsi.

Assuming the inference is correct, how can we prove that Walt isn't a Bush supporter? Well since we know that a Bush supporter would vote for Bush, someone who will not vote for Bush is not a Bush supporter. We know that Walt won't vote for Bush so he isn't a Bush supporter. If we have any doubts about whether Walt will vote for Bush, we could ask him.

Walt's voting plan is neutral as far as the contest between Bush and the Democratic candidate is concerned. Neither one of them benefits or suffers at his hand. The only time it is not neutral is in the event that the Democratic candidate is one he finds acceptable. In that scenarion the Democrats benefit. So none of the possibilities hurts the Democrats, although there are situations in which they will be neither helped not hurt.

[leftofthedial]

108. I'm sorry for calling you "fool."

Believe it or not, it was inadvertent. I don't think you are a fool. I do think you didn't read the posts you responded to and then responded drastically.

If you read the post I was replying to and my post, not just the subject line, you'll see:

1. It is absolutely clear WS is NOT voting for Bush.

2. I never said he would vote for Bush. Never. I also never said he was a Bush supporter. Never.

3. My OPINION expressed in the post was that the net effect of WS's stated voting plan would be to, number 1, vote for Dean if he is nominated. (I pointed out that none of the other Dem's on WS's "approved list" have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination). Therefore, Dean is the only Democrat WS will vote for. If Dean is not nominated though, then, number 2, WS would fail to cast a meaningful (except symbolically) vote agains fascism. By not voting or by voting for a 3rd party candidate with no chance to win (same effect on the election's outcome), he would neglect his one opportunity to directly strike a blow against fascism and would (indirectly) aid Bush's reselection effort.

Failing to oppose fascism is not neutrality. My opinion is that any nonvote or any vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) in effect tacit aids the current fascist regime's efforts to hold on to power. It's like being present at the commission of a crime and doing nothing or doing something other than trying to stop the crime. The criminal benefits from your nonparticipation. That's not neutrality. It's negligence.

Dean would be the #1 beneficiary of the WS strategy. If Dean is not in the race, Bush would be the #2 beneficiary of the WS strategy.

You can disagree with my opinion (as you apparently do). You can disagree that Bush is a fascist. You can disagree that the Democrats on WS's "approved" list are NOT fascists. You can disagree that a non-Democratic vote is wasted. Fine. Go ahead and disagree. We could even have a civilized debate about it. But I gave you no reason to call me a liar twice. That was despicable. If you had any integrity, you'd apologize.

[Walt Starr]

114. Just a point, Dean is NOT the only Democrat I will vote for

Lieberman is the only Democrat that I will absolutely NOT vote for. Should Lieberman win the nomination, I will leave the Democratic PArty and work hard for some third party campaign. I would also be forced to leave DU should this happen.

Braun, Sharpton, Graham, Kucinich, or yes, even Clark would all have my vote by default. I would work for any campaign for any of these Democrats and would donate money to their campaigns, just as I will once Dean wins the nomination :evilgrin: .

A Gephardt, Kerry, or Edwards nomination will require me to think long and hard before supporting them because all three have blood on their hands. Will I vote for them? I cannot say yes or no at this time. It all depends upon how things play out from here. Most likely, my final decision will be made in the voting booth if any of these three candidates win the nomination, so it should go without saying that none of these three would receive a donation from me nor would I work for their campaigns. Since I cannot support any of these three should they win the nomination, nor can I say I would vote for them ultimately in the general election, I would also be forced to leave DU should any of these three win the nomination. Them's the rules. I know the rules, support them, and will ultimately abide by them regardless of the outcome.

There is only one thing I can absolutely say at this time. I will not vote for Bush, ergo, Bush cannot be my #2 man.

[JVS]

116. I apologize for calling your statements lies, that was inflammatory.

I should have called them something less inflamatory, like falsehoods.

[JVS]

27. Because some just aren't so good

[Agent X]

31. From the perspective of a Dean supporter

I think a major reason is that the other democratic candidates and democratic leaders have been beating up on Dean for some time now. When someone like Kerry or Lieberman levels unfair criticism against the candidate you support, you tend to fire back at them. Personally, my criticism of the other democratic candidates has been pretty minimal. My anger is directed at King George.

[Pepperbelly]

33. LOL

It must just not be as noticable when it's your guys doing it. I notice when my guys do it and I have chastised them as much as I have a right to, considering that people can and do say what they want, from the perspective of it hurting THEIR (my) guy when they do that. No, some of the Dean supporters happily trash other candidates as well.

[blm]

40. May I ask who you think started attacking first?

Because the first attacks I heard were back in January coming from Dean. He was a centrist Democrat calling others with long liberal records, "Bushlite" and then continued to misrepresent their records for the next two months before any of them reciprocated.

I think a calendar graph of all the attacks made when and by whom might be very revealing.

[Tinoire]

45. Scratch your memory because I can't

Were the attacks really started by Dean supporters or by people claiming to be Dean supporters? I REALLY would like to know. I don't remember any Dean supporting old-time DUers beginning these attacks. I know they jumped in the fray but help me out here because I'm thinking of going through the archives looking for patterns.

Divide and conquer is not a new tactic in politics. Ask Skinner what he observed working on several campaigns. The internet is just adding a new, more cowardly and uncontrollable, untraceable dimension to it.

[Pepperbelly]

46. Who can really say who is who ...

in this anonymous medium?

I am frankly confused by that problem. No uniforms, no numbers, no programs, just names.

[Tinoire]

51. You can detect patterns

and there are ways to trace and piece.

The medium does a reasonable job of protecting anonymity but it also makes it very easy to trace and piece things together.

[Pepperbelly]

54. more trouble than I would want to go to for ...

something that is not particularly significant to me.

Seems to me that what matters the most still is what will actually make people's lives better but hey, I'm just bitter and old fashioned.

[Tinoire]

61. Which is why you probably have a much more pleasant life

than I do right now.

I'm bitter and cynical right now. Bitter from the capitulation of our Reps and cynical about exploitation. I learned a lot from years at the NTC.

It takes all kinds to make people's lives better because all angles have to be covered.

Do you think I don't envy the Freepers who can go to bed happy every night without having thoughts about PNAC, AEI, getting our best guy to the Primaries, saving our country before we pass the point of no return, etc...?

I envy them absolutely. I envy all the people who can go on with their daily mundane lives after the neo-con cabal stole so many of ours. But the cause is worth it. It's worth it for every American, every Iraqi, every Israeli, every Palestinian- dead or alive. Our world balance hangs on it and any advancement of the blue-prints they've been working off has got to be stopped.

This is why I am dangerously close to no longer identifying with the Democratic Party. It's lost its soul also.

[Pepperbelly]

63. I believe that we are talking apples and oranges or else ...

I totally misunderstood what you were talking about looking into re: candidates flaming.

[Tinoire]

66. Tracing and piecing... I was answer your post re mine

that had to do with tracing and piecing since you said it was more trouble than you would want to go to.

[Pepperbelly]

68. then all I can do is ...

to extend my wishes to you for your mind to ease so you can relax and enjoy the meager pleasures that this dark time offers us.

Peace and enjoy that which you can.

[Tinoire]

84. Dark times indeed

and I hope you will never take personally anything I post about any of the candidates. Out of respect for you, and all posters really, I'll try to do it in as considerate a manner as I can because we are on the same time.

Thanks for those wishes :) I wish that to all the DUers who have lost part of their lives over this.

[blm]

50. No...I mean the attcks by the candidates

and that started with Dean in January. His supporters cheered and joined in. Anyone around DU at the time should have some memory of the first time Dean started calling the others Bushlite.

[Tinoire]

53. Yes, I do remember them joining in and cheering on

The cheering was ok. Everyone has a right to cheer their candidate on. Who were the cheer-leaders?

[Agent X]

65. I am not aware

of these attacks by Dean early this year as I was out of the country for several months and wasn't getting much info on Democratic candidates. Maybe you can point me to some info on this?

All candidates criticize each other, but there seemed to be an orchestrated attack by many Democratic leaders to simultaneously gang up on Howard Dean. I can't say that any other single candidate has endured as many attacks from as many Democratic leaders as Dean has.

[Julien Sorel]

72. Dean attacked the other candidates as 'Bush-lite,'

accused them of being ashamed of being Democrats, and described himself as 'the most liberal of the serious contenders.' You can do a web search and get all this stuff and more. The one that gets me is describing himself as 'the most liberal' of the candidates, when he is clearly not even close. Kerry is far more liberal than Dean. But that was when Dean was a relative nobody, and he needed to jump-start his campaign.

[Agent X]

81. OK

Some of that sounds familiar. But I think what Dean was mainly doing was criticizing the strategy of the Democratic party as a whole rather than attacking individual candidates. He echoed the concerns of many Democrats who watched the party lose the White House and then Congress. I don't think it was unfair to point out that the Democratic strategy was not working. Still, his critcism of the Democrats was but a small part of he overall message. He directed most of it towards Bush.

[Julien Sorel]

89. It is unfair, however, to accuse the party of doing something you yourself

are guilty of. Dean is every bit as much a centrist as most Democratic insiders; Dean ran Vermont as a fiscal conservative; Dean is doing everything he can now to flash his moderate credentials. Yet he used to attack Democrats as 'Bush-lite.' In what way is he different? I think that's one of the problems people have with Dean -- and his supporters, who are telling me this guy is a political messiah, when I don't see it. And it still disturbs me that he used to claim he was the liberal of the contenders, (not even a year ago), but is now claiming to be a moderate. What happened to his spine? Who is this guy? If Democrats lost the White House and Congress, they lost with policies quite similar to the ones Dean himself espouses.


Before people try to jump in and accuse me of being a Dean basher, I actually have a fair amount of respect for him. He's a canny and smart politician, and I will have no problem supporting him if he's the candidate. I'm just not buying the bill of goods his supporters are selling me with his name attached.

[Pastiche423]

92. Not candidate bashing? Poppycock!

At least Dean has the balls to state loud and proud that he is a Democratic Candidate!

[Agent X]

95. Interesting...

You ask a good question, "Who is this guy"? It is truly difficult to label him, and in a way, I find that appealing.

You are calling him a centrist, but the DLC has been battling him all along because they think he is too liberal. They are convinced he is McGovern-lite and that his liberal views would guarantee a loss in an election.

I recommend reading this article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/12/democrats/

If I may use it steer things in the direction of the original topic, it shows an example of what I am talking about, where attacks on a candidate will bring about counter-attacks by supporters:

The DLC...has openly attacked Dean's followers, circulating a memo in May, reprised in an L.A. Times Op-Ed on July 3. "The fact is," the Op-Ed sneered, "'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."

Goaded by a notice on Dean's Web site, his followers responded by deluging the DLC with thousands of denunciations.

And this also illustrates the point I was making about an organized effort by certain democrats to bring down Howard Dean.

[Julien Sorel]

99. Some war with the DLC.

His positions and those of the DLC are virtually identical, except for his stance on the Iraq war. He also fired the first shots in this war, of course, from the first days of his campaign.
The article you cited also calls him a centrist, he calls himself a centrist (right now he does, anyway), his views are centrist -- he's a centrist. From your article:

The fight between the two sides isn't so much ideological as tactical. Howard Dean, after all, isn't really a leftist, or even a traditional liberal. He's the most fiscally conservative of the nine candidates running for the Democratic nomination and supports gun rights and the death penalty. Certainly, his antiwar stance has won him a great deal of liberal support, but his pugnacious style has been almost equally as important.

The DLC has been battling him because he chose to get himself on the political map by attacking them, not because he's a liberal.

[Agent X]

101. But...

But I think the DLC and others are calling him on some of his more liberal views like his opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's tax cuts, things the democratic leadership went along with. Plus they did pretty much spell it out in their evaluation of his movement:

weakness abroad and elitist interest-group liberalism at home

If I may steer things back to the original topic again though...

Regardless of who started criticising whom first, I think there is some truth in my original theory, but let me modify it a bit.

Perhaps it all starts at the top. Supporters bash other candidates because they observe this behavior in the candidates themselves. Perhaps negative campaigning, which started with the policitians themselves, has influenced debate among the voters.

[Julien Sorel]

105. And perhaps people behave the way they do

for their own reasons. Monkey-see, monkey-do doesn't cut it with me, because few people are genuinely so brainless as to take direction from other people whom they have never met.

Everyone has their own stake in their candidates, and in some cases, the defeat of some other candidate; under those circumstances, they will attack for their own purposes. And then there are the folks whose candidate doesn't attack at all (Clark); yet there have been Clark supporters who were quite aggressive, shall we say, on the attack.

[Eloriel]

74. Agent X

Hi! Welcome to DU.

Some people here can't distinguish between criticism and "attacks" or "bashing." They can't distinguish between misrepresenting and lying about a candidate's positions and words and policies and the truth. I don't mind criticism, but I hate the misrepresentations. Unfortunately, some candidates' supporters can't seem to find things to criticize without those distortions.

And yes, they're going to be ganging up on Dean big time, 'cause he's the frontrunner. I know he and Trippi understand that and are going to be as prepared as possible and handle it as well as can be expected.

Eloriel

[Agent X]

83. Thanks for the welcome

I'm glad I found this forum.

Since I am new here, I have not seen all this candidate-bashing by forum members. I only know what I follow in the news, and from my POV, most of the negative criticism seems to be directed at Dean, even from those Democratic leaders who are not running. But I think he can take it, and it may have just given him an underdog/politcial outsider appeal that has helped him more than hurt him.

[Forkboy]

34. No one wants to be backing the loser

I remember when all the new video game consoles came out.Everyone wanted to believe they bought the best system so they spent a lot of time putting down the other systems."The X-Box is best"..."No,the Playstation 2 rules you idiot!"..."You're both chowderheads...everyone knows the Gamecube is the best pick!". And on and on it goes.It seems to be the same mechanism at work here with the candidates.

[JohnKleeb]

36. interesting analogy fork

I am a game fourm person too, "x box fan boys" something I saw a lot. That said I am a Kucinich man and a PS2 man heh see you aorund

[Forkboy]

39. Hey me too!

:hi:

[JohnKleeb]

85. PS2 and Kucinich :) aye the winning combo

[JVS]

37. Beta sucks!

I just had to say it.

[tedoll78]

41. Being a GameCube fan,

I see that analogy and it speaks volumes to me.

Now, back to my game of Wind Waker.. hehe..

[quinnox]

38. Just wait until next week when Kerry

is making his official announcement in front of an aircraft carrier. Some Dean supporters will be throwing a fit! There will be several threads (by Dean supporters) about how awful Kerry is and how this will backfire on his campaign.

[Cha]

42. This is coming from someone who constantly trashes Dean...

so I'm not impressed.

[quinnox]

44. Not so much lately

I used to start a few Dean threads months ago, but lately only one or two and they weren't so negative either. Anyway, I bet my prediction will come true.

[Cha]

47. We'll have to see how Kerry comes off! I'm sure the Dean

supporters will call it like they see it...so what?

[WilliamPitt]

58. In front of an aircraft carrier?

He's going to be down in Fanueil Hall. I know because I'm going to be there.

[Egnever]

60. yes but....

Aparently he is anouncing in several different places.

[Eloriel]

75. Does that mean he's changed his mind?

Or, like egnever says, is going to be in several different places (at once???? Now THAT would be a trick.)

Eloriel

[CTLawGuy]

94. no...

Why should Dean supporters attack a candidate he is 21 points ahead of in NH?

[DarbyUSMC]

52. Is it that English isn't spoken by some here?

You asked a perfectly sane question and look at some of the childish answers. Honest to whoever, sometimes I think this is a preschool playground.

The question: Why the anger at the other candidates? It does seem to me on every level of politics that there are people who, if partial to one person, tend to "hate" the other. What happens to them when one candidate is out there after the convention? Do they all of a sudden, out of the blue, go all out for that candidate? Hard to do in my estimation, at least if true bashing and hatred has been demonstrated. Have a nice weekend.

[NNN0LHI]

56. I have asked that very question a couple of times here

I got the same answer every time. "Ooh, then I will vote "third party" (for Bush). What does that tell you?

Don

[Cha]

71. Yeah, and I told him! And so did a lot of others so we really

don't need to be "scolded" by you.

[quinnox]

77. It's ironic

you talk about preschool answers, and then proceed to use purple text.

[stickdog]

55. KeyTo Understanding Candidate Inspired Anger

Dean - Deanis envy
Kerry - Kerry over from his Iraq War vote
Clark - nagging suspicions in General
Gephardt - Too much Gep, too little hardt
Lieberman - OK, so's he's right -- he doesn't have to rub it in our faces.
Kucinich - it's just the meat talking.
Sharpton - no need to attack him, just say "attack"
Mosely-Braun - mostly done
Edwards & Graham - who?

[Tinoire]

62. lol - thanks for sharing that ! n/t

[Pastiche423]

76. I like your key too

[uptohere]

69. haven't been here long but boy is this the case

and its not a pretty sight. I guess the notion of debate and discourse is the exception rather than the rule here.

[Cha]

73. We have our personal favorites for the Primary but when it is all

over and we have a Democratic candidate for Prez then I believe we will all come together and Work Hard and oust bush out on his "whistle ass" kister.

Especially since it is in the Rules! :bounce:

[Eloriel]

79. Speak for yourself, zidzi

;-)

I ain't takin' no party loyalty oaths. And anyone who runs for Prez -- or anything else -- is going to have to earn my vote. I'm tired prostituting my vote. Not going to do it anymore. It's precious, it's sacred (computerized voting machines notwithstanding), and I'm going to spend it with care.

Eloriel

[Walt Starr]

82. I'm with you, Eloriel

If Lieberman gets nominated, I walk and I also leave DU. I know the rules, I accept them, and I will abide by them.

Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards are potential walks for me too. I'll wait and see, but if any of those three are nominated, I will also have to leave DU because I cannot just blindly get behind these men. I cannot come on these boards and pretend to support men I do not support.

[Cha]

90. I just can't believe things would be get so bad that we would

nominate lieberman! And I don't want bush so I would vote for kerry. I am not staying home on voting day!

But I respect what you have to do!

The thought of all that happening makes me really sad.. so for now I will just be really positive about my Candidate and hope he pulls through victorious at the finish!

[Walt Starr]

115. I can see Lieberman winning the nomination handily

If Diebold machines are in place for the primaries, I see Lieberman winning them in a landslide. After all, Whistle Ass knows he can defeat Lieberman in a landslide.

[Cha]

88. Okay! I speak for myself then, Sorry!

What was I thinking? :-(

[Tinoire]

98. I can't. I woke up to find the Democratic Party ASLEEP at the wheel

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

—George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

ABB (Anyone But Bush) has it's limits.

Sacrificing our principles time after time is what got us where we are now. Year after year, we simply voted for the lesser of two evils, should we be surprised that we have finally ended up with absolute evil and over a million Iraqis dead (sanctions and all)?

The Democratic Party fell asleep or something while I trusted they were at the wheel. A bump in the road jogged me then all of a sudden the car ride got so bumpy and crazy that I AWOKE FROM MY SLEEP TO FIND DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.

Well, I'm awake, awake now and I'm not going back to sleep :wtf: I'm guarding this gate and and no one is getting my vote with my personal seal of approval that I know they will do a GOOD job. No one's getting my vote just like that anymore.

The ship is crashing. Our country is about to be dashed against the rocks economically and the world explode from the hate that was unleashed. I HAVE to be sure that the person at the helm WILL STOP the course we're on and TURN THIS SHIP AROUND. The changing of the guard is no longer amusing.

If that's all we're going to get, I won't even bother getting up to vote. I'll just sit in my chair in an exhausted, angry stupor knowing that nothing will ever change because the neo-cons got their teeth in so deep that they'll still be in charge.

[diamondsoul]

106. Naaaah, Tin that's not the answer!

"The ship is crashing. Our country is about to be dashed against the rocks economically and the world explode from the hate that was unleashed. I HAVE to be sure that the person at the helm WILL STOP the course we're on and TURN THIS SHIP AROUND. The changing of the guard is no longer amusing.

If that's all we're going to get, I won't even bother getting up to vote. I'll just sit in my chair in an exhausted, angry stupor knowing that nothing will ever change because the neo-cons got their teeth in so deep that they'll still be in charge."

Because it's not over until the ship actually crashes. People like you, me, JK hell just about everyone on DU really won't give up until it's time. It would be no better than going back to sleep and pretending it didn't matter.

So what we'll do is bide our time again. Plan, prepare, and be ready to slap them in their smirking faces in 2008, and slap them so hard they fall on their asses. Heh, we'll borrow a page from Sharpton and SMACK THAT DONKEY! See now we're awake, now we're ready to rumble, but it may just be we woke up a little late for this battle. I'm not prepared to say that yet, but it may be.

We'll still make it through this storm, that much I know, and when we do you and I know who will be steering this ship.

[Mairead]

111. Dusha-krasavitsa moya!

Naiprekrasno skazano!

[tlcandie]

78. IMO .. if it were DK, Kerry, Clark or whoever who took the lead,

such as has been demonstrated more than aptly here in DU regarding Dean, then I believe that same candidate would be taking the heat as well.

I'm afraid that whoever takes the lead will thus have to handle the heat as well...part of the "IN YOUR FACE", rational. At this time, Dean is the one who has ALL of the attention it would seem.

Enjoy it! There will always be criticism. Zidzi has it right...just post TRUTH and not get into the ya-yaing of it all. You won't change peoples' minds anyway...not on purpose.

If you just state truth (with reference or whatever), then it is their stuff to own or move on.

HUGS all! Chins up! There's a war going on out there and we gotta hang in and stick together :) :hi:

[robbedvoter]

80. I am hostile to whomever sez: "Get over it" (see my handle)

In the end, I'll vote for the nominee, but I hope to Gods it won't be Kerry.

[Stuckinthebush]

91. Damn good question, Pete

I am sick of DUers who continually bash other candidates than the ones that they prefer. God, it is nearsighted as hell! I just want to slap the back of their heads and say, "Can it smartass!"

[HPLeft]

93. Interesting Question

I know that when I heard Joe Lieberman a few months ago claim that Bush did the right thing in Iraq, I was ready to demolish my TV set right then and there. I don't know whether he really believes this, or he was just trying to position himself for the Reagan Democrat vote. This is politics, after all. I was pretty angry, but I had nowhere to vent at that point in time.

I think the larger issue is that trash talking is now one of the accepted ways that political dialogue is conducted. It's pretty much all we see on cable television and and hear on talk radio nowadays. I'm strongly in Kerry's corner, but if Dean wins the nomination, I'll be happy to enthusiastically support him in the general election. Or General Clark, or any of the serious candidates.

It's pretty obvious that Dean is doing well with people who are furious about everything we've seen happen since Dubya took office. I think that all of us agree that it appears that our nation has been hijacked, and are amazed that it has happened so quickly. There's a lot of hard feelings out there.

[Cha]

96. Agreed!

"There's a lot of hard feelings out there."


It's really more than we can even imagine...it's like in our subconscience, too!

[UTUSN]

100. I Slipped the Other Day

I definitely have my choice based 90% on my guess re: electability/beating-the-crap-out-of-Shrub, and NEVER say *bad* things about other Dems---certainly not their qualities as Dems--- and only SELDOM let fall a remark about supposed non-electability of the others. But the other night there was a thread listing the top 4 who should stay and the others who should drop out now. I slipped and posted "X should (also) drop out. n/t". An X-supporter posted, "Why? n/t" A third party replied, "What an intelligent contribution." Haha. Well, somebody else had said others should drop out without rationale.

But, yeah, it's disturbing that the level of hostility means it is not likely that the nominee will be able to get the support of the other one or two. Despite my having been snarky and been snarky-TO in that other thread, I have voted for every nominee including at least two who were not my first choice and whom I was angry at for their certainty-of-losing.

[diamondsoul]

107. I have a question.

Which of the 8, when we exclude Lieberman, are not "serious candidates"? Sorry, but I see that as hostile. It's insulting to the candidates and to the supporters of those you didn't mention except to imply that some of them aren't "serious candidates".

Just pointing out that a comment like that can make some people bristle. Given that my candidate has been dubbed "unelectable", "unrealistically ideal" and other less than flattering things, I'll have to admit I wondered if you include Kucinich in the not "serious candidates" category. I'm not taking offense because to do so I'd have to make the assumption you intended to insult some people's candidates. Just thought I'd point out it's slightly insulting the way it's phrased.

[HPLeft]

109. Is Think Kucinich is Serious

I personally think Kucinich is a very serious candidate, and someone who is bringing some very interesting ideas to the debate. He's getting a lot of support from people in my philosphical neck of the woods. In fact, I think if we weren't at war (and, who knows, between now and the election, Bush may incite a few more), Kucinich might be doing much better in the polls than he's doing at present.

[leftofthedial]

104. have your favorites and support them

but voting for whomever the Democratic Party nominates is the ONLY way to get the Bush Cabal out of power in 2004.

This should be the primary goal of every citizen who opposes fascism.

[NNN0LHI]

110. You are right. How can we clean out our own house when it is being...

...held hostage by people who should be in an insane asylum, and while they have all of the power? After we get a hold of the power again, I will be the first one suggesting that we must replace the dead weight in our own party. I actually look forward to that day. First things first though.

Don

[FlaGranny]

112. Because some people don't realize

that this kind of stuff only serves to make others defensive and be less likely to "adopt" the bashers' candidates, I guess.

[Le Taz Hot]

113. Tell ya what, Pete NYC . . .

I'll make you a deal. I'll kick up any thread you want to start regarding anti-candidate-bashing/idiot threads/flambait threads and you do the same for me. Deal? ;-)

Debate is an integral part of Democracy and, particularly in a presidential primary at the most critical time in our nation's history, we SHOULD be debating. Unfortunately, a few here don't seem to understand the concept. "I disagree with Kerry's vote for the war and here's why . . ." is FAR different that "Kerry has stupid-looking hair." (No, I'm NOT picking on Kerry, these idiot posts have been made about ALL the candidates.)

I've been on this mantra for several weeks now but, to little avail. I do take heart in knowing that it is just a few, VERY prolific posters who seem to perpetuate this juvenile behavior. I also know that the VAST MAJORITY of candidate supporters do not engage in this sort of activity. If we could just police ourselves DU would be a much better place. If you see an obvious flame-bait thread, DON'T POST TO IT! Let it die.


I don't know about everyone else but I came to DU wanting/needing information that the mediawhores do not provide me AND to engage in INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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