Why not attack other Democratic candidates?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I think the biggest reason not to attack other Democrats, especially in a forum like this, is that you are poisoning the well. In an arid landscape, the whole community depends on the well for water. The water that is going to allow us to take back the White House in 2004 is our enthusiasm and energy. We need to be doing the things that will keep that flowing whoever is the nominee.

[Pillowbiter]

1. I agree

I like Kucinich alot. I will support Dean, or any other candidate that wins the Dem nomination. I will not talk badly about any candidate...though I may stress caution with Leiberman...

This one is not just for the US, but for the world. It is far too important to waste it all on bickering.

PB

[asjr]

2. attack

I agree. We should not be attacking any of them. One of them may turn out to be our "savior" and it does no good to bash our own. I will go with the nominee whoever it is. I have my favorite and will be happy if he is the nominee, but I will not denigrate any of the others.

[asjr]

3. attack

I agree. We should not be attacking any of them. One of them may turn out to be our "savior" and it does no good to bash our own. I will go with the nominee whoever it is. I have my favorite and will be happy if he is the nominee, but I will not denigrate any of the others.

[DeTHuGoFTHuGS]

4. This is exactly what we need

Good job, guys! If he/she is a Dems, we must endorse him/her, unless it's Zell Miller.

[phillybri]

5. Great call....

Case in point: Kerry and Dean are the frontrunners according to most. If Kerry or Dean gets the nod, the Repubs will have all the ammo that they unloaded on each other to use during the general election....

Great post.

[Teacher4dean04]

6. I agree, but...

But don't want that idea to stiffle discussion comparing the candidates' positions. I have learned more about Kerry and DK from reading intelligent dialogue than from browsing through their websites. Keep up the dialogue!

[keek]

7. the key word is "intelligent"

I admit that I probably haven't always engaged in intelligent dialogue because I have felt like I was on the defense. There are people on this board (i suspect they work for Kerry.. but I have no proof) out to ruin Dean. For example, in one thread, someone equated Dean supporters with Nazis, and in another, to Bush. I just can't tolerate ignorant comments like that because you never know who is just logging on and really interested in learning what people say on here about the candidates. It is ridiculous.

I agree that we need to establish a more clear line, maybe when posters start to sway away from intelligent debate and towards bashing, then we can simply acknowledge that they are starting to cross the line and not continue the debate. We do need the dialogue so that newbies and undecided people can learn about the candidates. Also so that we can make sure that we nominate the best candidate and when it comes time for the 2004 campaign, we will all know the candidate's platform inside and out. :) I cannot wait for 2004!!!

[LWolf]

8. Intelligent, respectful

questioning and debate is part of the process. It can happen without bashing, and it does in some cases. We shouldn't stifle discussion, we should just discuss respectfully. You do a good job of this, Teacher4dean04.

I'm a supporter of DK. That doesn't mean I don't want to hear other's viewpoints, or consider the positions of other candidates. I read the threads about other candidates, but generally don't post unless there is an obvious discrepancy. It wouldn't occur to me to start a post bashing another candidate. Not my style. If I don't agree, I will say so. Respectfully. Hopefully, whoever is nominated, we will all be on the same side in voting for them.

[GreenArrow]

9. I'll disagree

if a politician or candidate of any party, is lying, misrepresenting, cheating, inept, whatever, it is our responsiblity as citizens to point it out. This is not the same as critquing an opposing candidates stands on the issues, so long as that criticism is fair and valid. But when a candidate like Lieberman, in his statement supporting the Iraq war resolution, repeats the lie about Sadaam kicking the inspectors out of Iraq, or when Tom Daschle, in his leadership role, spouts inanities like "I cannot ever imaging a president lying about matters of such importance" I don't intend to stand there and nod my head stupidly.