For us Dems to Unite we Must be Able to Discuss our Differences and

[KoKo]

the divide between the DLC/DNC/PDA needs to be defined. For a Healthy Party to Emerge we must look at how we've failed in three elections and also take into consideration that there is a huge "Anti-Iraq Invasion" Faction and a large group of "September 11th Questioners Group" who have felt they have been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party.

The ability to have open discussions about this will only strengthen us even if appears to divide or involve "flames" in the immediate term. We have two years until the Mid-Terms. We need all the help we can get on "Voting Integrity" for all Americans and Volunteers for Party Leadership which is now taking place all over America. To cut dialog and differences off at this crucial time would be to stifle our Party and not allow the breathing room for all of us to "hash out differences, do some reflective thinking and hammer out what will be a NEW DEMOCRATIC COALITION. :shrug:

[Paul Dlugokencky]

1. Hear, Hear!

http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[KoKo]

2. Here are two interesting threads that could begin a dialog toward healing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3596067


And:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1763282&mesg_id=1763282

[NMDemDist2]

3. I agree an open discussion of the issues we disagree on is important

since Democracy is by definition a matter of compromise.

What saddens me is when I see folks dig into a entrenched position without giving others the freedom to disagree without attacking.

Discussion on issues is one thing, attacking each other rather than civilly discussing our differences and trying to find common ground is entirely another.

Thank you KoKo for bringing this up. I just hope we can find a way to discuss these issues without having to flame and bash each other. It just degenerates the discussion and does nothing to find the common ground we can all live with. We don't all have to love the result, we just have to get it to a certain comfort level we can all live with.

[blogbear]

5. amen!

[H2O Man]

6. Very true.

This should be a place where people can be open and honest, and not be offended when other people have sincere differences of opinion.

[mopinko]

4. starters- quit dissing the big dawg

there are 2 people in this country who can (and might) stand up to the corporate media and ask the question- why is a blow job news and a war based on lies and corruption is not? those 2 people are bill and hill. people should just accept them as being a lot more on our side than not. let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and see how things go in 2006.

[wurzel]

7. The fact is Clinton let us all down.

There absolutely no excuse for what he did. And we paid a heavy price for it. There is no way around that. It is not a matter of "dissing" anyone. Clinton also failed to get a healthcare system for Democrats but he did get "welfare reform" and NAFTA for the Republicans. Clinton is no hero of mine. But it didn't stop me voting for Al Gore. And who would deny how much better off our country would be if he was president today? Clinton has a hell of a lot to answer for.

[KoKo]

8. The fact is that Clinton is long gone...and we are talking about '06.

Clinton can be a wonderful stateman but he's gone and we have 4 years of Bush's pillaging of the treasury, etc. to deal with.

[mopinko]

9. that is just crap

no excuse for what he did? get a blow job you mean? be the object of a coup? fail to exercise power that he did not have? what was he supposed to do? declare martial law? get over it.

[wurzel]

16. What is "crap' is Clinton's incredible stupidity.

He knew they were after him. He knew Lewinsky would talk. Clinton had a lot of people relying on him. Sorry. I have no time for him. And there are nearly 1600 soldiers who are not "going to get over it"! I'm not suggesting he is to blame for the Iraq war. But he is to blame for Gore's defeat that gave us Bush. Actions have consequences.

[NMDemDist2]

13. unfortunately this is the type of post that rehashes history and

brings no issues to the fore.

If we continually bring up personalities rather than principles we are doomed to spin our wheels IMHO

the Clintons were for some issues I passionately supported and they supported some issues I vehemently disagreed with.

Either way, it's the issues that need hashing out, not the personalities that bring them to us.

[wurzel]

30. Unfortunately votes are more for "personalities" than for "issues"

Many voters accepted the idea that Bush's "personality" was somehow superior to Gore's. There is no accounting for taste. Even Clinton really won his elections on "personality" rather than issues. I wish issues did count more. But if they did Kerry would be President today, and Bush couldn't get elected anywhere but Texas. The issues of taxes and health care etc were very well articulated by the Dems during the election. But everything was deliberately drowned out by fake "character" issues. The result is we have just about the most personally and politically corrupt administration in our history.

[NMDemDist2]

39. I must (sadly) agree. Nonetheless, we need find common ground to

give our candidates a clear message to take to the rest of the country.

If we can't agree, how can we expect to lead?

[ms liberty]

10. Our greatest asset is our diversity and tolerance for differences...

But it also is our most exploited perceived weakness.

[jen4clark]

17. Perfectly said ms liberty!

We have a common enemy and that alone should be enough to unite us in the fight of our lives!

:hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

11. I'd be willing to bet a leg that there is general agreement on 85% to 90%

of the issues we face.

The disagreement seems to be in the details. I know where I want this country to go. If **any** candidate is about moving in that direction, I will be behind him as much as I was behind my guy in the primaries and as much as I was behind **our** guy in the general election. (They were different guys - between the primaries and the general election.)

I dare say none of us agree 100% even with whomever we say we support. That's because we actually try to think for ourselves.

It is all about the long haul. I'd like to think we're all pulling in the same *general* direction

This is not to say we shouldn't discuss - and discuss passionately - what we believe in. But in the end, we're all on the same side. I know I've seen my own views change here and there, just by listening to and absorbing what *you* say. I hope you'll also listen to what *I* say.

[Erika]

12. Did we lose elections or were they stolen?

That's the first issue to face. From all the polls everywhere, the American people are on our side of the issues, not the GOP.

[janx]

14. The Democratic party is going to go through some major

changes. It has to be rebuilt. That doesn't mean that democratic ideals will vanish. The party will gain from these realignments in the long run. The reason this is necessary is that when the Republican party was hijacked by the religious right and the neocons, there were those who remained (or became) independent voters. Those voters needed a place to go. Many have joined the Dem party. Some still need a place to go. Look at the libertarian types; there are some on this board who are very much allied with Dem beliefs at this point.

If the Democratic party doesn't do this, there will be nobody to lend a real voice to the wrongs that have been committed against our country by the neocons and the religious right. The problems will worsen.

Rebuilding from the bottom up, which is what the DNC is doing, is probably the most powerful way to go about gaining realignment. If the DLC and PDA want to help in this regard, it would probably be best if they joined the DNC in doing so on the state and local levels.

[KoKo]

32. The PDA are the ones organizing in the states at the Grassroots level!

But, we are having to fight the DLC to do it.

I would say just the opposite to what you say, in that the DLC and DNC need to move towards the Progressives and the Anti-Bush War Doctrine Activists. Dean see's this because in a way he is responsible for the Progressives with the addition of Kuchinch and former Nader supporters who came together after the recent election. Some DFA activists and Kucinich and Nader Activists are naturally reluctant to trust the PDA, though. Hell, I don't even trust the PDA, yet.

Dean battled to become DNC Chairman against the wishes of most in the DNC/DLC establishment. Without the Dem Progressive Activists in the states pushing for him he wouldn't have managed it. And without the activists who "earned their spurs" walking the pavements and manning the phones for Kerry...the DNC/DLC wouldn't have capitulated and allowed Dean to be the DNC Chair.

The "Activists" are the same people who rallied around Kerry when their own candidates didn't make it and the same people who are working on Election Reform.

[welshTerrier2]

15. can we get there from here ??

i'm not confident that flamewars are the path to unity ... i guess i think they help highlight deep differences and widen rifts within the Party ... and i strongly believe unity is a critically needed ingredient ...

there are many problems that currently prevent unity ... on DU, differences seem to primarily manifest themselves either between and among various candidate factions (i.e. the primary wars) or between those who believe allegiance to the Party is an absolute requirement (i.e. a litmus test) and those who are deeply committed to one or more specific issues that the Party does not currently adhere to (i.e. a litmus test) ...

unity has to evolve from a process; it cannot be demanded ... the process, at least to me, has to start with a healthy dose of improved intra-party communication ... this communication should enable all Democrats to have increased contact with their elected reps both to better understand why their reps will vote, or have voted, as they do AND to have the reps give voters a greater opportunity to be heard ...

ultimately, the goal is at least greater tolerance and hopefully respect ... the goal should never be a total agreement on all issues ... that just can't happen ...

and one of the components of this enhanced communication should be a search for "elements of compromise", i.e., sort of a "process of mediation" ... for example, let's say one group is totally pushing for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and the other group sees that as a terrible idea ... what should the process be if unity is the goal ???

first, there has to be a willingness to sit down and talk about the intra-party differences ... if communication doesn't happen, unity becomes impossible ... if it does, then the second step, the search for "elements of compromise" begins ... this does not mean that anyone should, or would be willing, to compromise ... it means you try to define what a "middle ground" could be, i.e. you negotiate ... whether anyone buys into the various proposals remains to be seen ...

so, again, with the above example of Iraq, proposals could include timeframes (e.g. i will vote against all appropriations for Iraq if this things drags on longer than x months or years) ... or the proposals could include a commitment to investigate the pre-war intelligence or speak out on the recent UK memo ... or it could include a willingness to start educating the American people about the suffering the occupation has caused to the Iraqi people ... or it could call for investigations of why bush has not spent the reconstruction funds ... these are just a few examples of "elements of compromise" on this specific issue ...

the point is that we need a new process, a process of reform, to help bridge the gap in the Party ... it is never realistic to expect unity when people don't believe they have a voice or that those they disagree with are willing to listen and perhaps to compromise ... no matter what the process, unity can never be guaranteed; the process we currently have, however, will guarantee that unity will not be achieved ...

i think we CAN get there from here but changes need to start happening soon if we're going to have the whole team on the field by 2006 ...

[NMDemDist2]

40. well said WT2 n/t

[KoKo]

45. Nice post. I just think we need this year to unwind and hash out

a little more before we gear towards that "Unity" in the Mid-Terms. I think we need to work the bitterness out...because we supressed it to vote for Kerry.

I'm more for "vetting angst" as long as it isn't total flames until it burns out and folks in exhaustion suddenly find they have a common ground. I don't think we Dems have been able to vet angst enough because we've been so bombarded after "Selection 2000."

And, really, on an "open Message Board" we do always have folks trying to throw us off strategy...so it's hard. But, even so, we have such a broad network here they can't disrupt everything so some real fireworks as we "realign" for 2006, might be good.

This is only my 2 cents...though.

[welshTerrier2]

46. "common ground" or "shaky ground" ?

i've written many posts since the election that were titled something like "this is a very dangerous time for the Democratic Party" ...

i think many ABB'ers, people who might not normally be willing to compromise their beliefs but did because bush is just so destructive, "came home" to the Party last year but are not nearly as likely to do so again ... Dean seemed to offer the hope that, even if the Party didn't "move left", it would promote reforms that would provide a more open process to negotiate policy ...

i've grown increasingly skeptical that Dean has any intention of doing this ... and i think the reaction to this is letters like we've recently seen from Hayden and Kucinich ... this is a very, very unhealthy rift ... perhaps things will evolve toward some kind of unity ... if the occupation does not start winding down soon, i think the Democrats may carry a serious unresolved rift into 2006 ... the republicans appear to be extremely vulnerable right now; if things don't improve soon though, i doubt Democrats will see much gain from it ... and that's too bad ...

that's only my 2 cents too ...

[KoKo]

47. I think maybe those letters

are part of the repositioning. But, I think going at Dean when he's an "Administrator" know and responsible for getting funding and grassroot organizing in place at State Level at this point is harsh. I've said so many times on this Board in the last few days that Dean was NOT our elected Leader...it was Kerry and Edwards. I'm in Edwards home state. We've gotten no help from him on voting reform or anything...he out working for his "Poverty Foundation." Kerry is back in the Senate doing what he's always done. Those were the supposed "Leaders" of the Dem Party.

I kind of think that it's unfair to go after Dean. He really is trying to help Grassroots efforts for rebuilding the party on a State Level. Here in NC what we faced was awful, antiquated...and we've had Democratic Governers for over 12 years...yet our party was just a bunch of "insiders" totally opposed to change or new ideas. Many of us spent money out of our own pockets to run off flyers to organize for Kerry, FGS...he and the DNC never gave us anything much to work with.

Dean just gave us money to be able to organize Grassroots and we have people in place now who will know what to do with it. Before that it would have gone into the lock box of the DNC of NC, and who knows what they would have done with it.

I think that it was misguided for Hayden and Kuchinich to send letters to Dean, even though both were good letters they should have been directed at Kerry. :shrug: Who the hell else should be leading us but the guy who seems to want to run again? Dean has said he's not running and as DNC Chair it would be kind of hard for him to leave it and go campaign, when he's got such a huge job of reorganizing ahead of him.
Again...my 2 cents...just what I think from my experience on the Kerry campaign..

[welshTerrier2]

48. letters and tomatoes ...

i did not mean to imply in my last post that i supported the letters sent by Hayden and Kucinich (i do support them, btw) ... the point i was trying to make was that looking at recent events like Dean's (consistent but repeated) statement that "we're stuck in Iraq" and the Senate's strong vote for more occupation funding, it was inevitable, absent greater sensitivity to those who feel alienated by such actions, that Hayden and Kucinich would have written the letters they did ...

btw, since you brought up the topic of "going after" Dean, here's my take on Dean ... yadda yadda yadda "only 4 months" yadda yadda yadda "the Chair doesn't make policy" ... well, that's fine ... but we just had every Democratic Senator vote more money to continue the occupation ... it seems to me, with a majority of the country let alone Democrats having very negative feelings about the occupation and a very high percentage (close to 50?) believing we should withdraw in the "near-term" (and probably a higher percentage among only Democrats), it seems like Dean should be reaching out to PDA and showing more sensitivity than to issue his very consistent statement that "we're stuck there" ... what greater "fuck you" could he have offered to those who don't agree with him ... Dean may not make policy and may not control how the Senators vote, but it absolutely is his job to start healing the rift ... and on this critical issue, so far he's done very poorly ... if he hasn't, what's all the commotion about ??? it's fair to ask that Dean be given more time ... but i think he's totally blown it so far on Iraq (i also disagree with his position but that's another thread) and whether i give him more time or not, 2006 is not all that far off and the feathers are a-flyin' ...

my point, given the focus of this thread, was to suggest that the letters are an unfortunate, but inevitable, consequence of the above-mentioned actions ... this cannot continue ... and if Dean is not able to "engineer" a more positive direction, it will continue ...

whether someone agrees or not with Hayden and Kucinich is not the point ... the point is the rift is growing and needs to be addressed quickly if we are to avoid a 1968 divided party scenario in 2006 and 2008 ...

[KoKo]

49. I hear ya....and understand what you say..

and might in another time have agreed with you. But, where I disagree is that Dean or McAuliff could ever herd our Dems in House and Senate to listen to the folks "out there like us."

That's the problem in a nutshell. The DNC Chair has no influence with the party. His/Her job is to bring in the money that allows funds for Dem Candidates to get elected after the Lobby money dries up.

And, what's important about what you said is that folks out here don't know that Dean has no say so about what the Party's position is. It wasn't until I got involved that I had that rude awakening that it's the lobbyists for the causes and Corporations that run the show in the Dem Party and in the Repug.

What Dean hopes to do...from what I've heard is to redistribute the money so that we have a chance of getting folks in who are responsible to the "little people" and will support a "Platform" (yet to be agreed too) where they will be held "ACCOUNTABLE" if they veer off. This would keep most Dems from thinking about voting for a Credit Card Sponsored Bankruptcy bill for fear the "little folks" would come after them.

We are so desperate for a leader that we look to Dean when in fact he's now "CEO" of the Dem Party and is in charge of growing the business and not making policy. Should he have spoken out with what he said, the way he said it...probably not but it isn't inconsistent with what he said before he became DNC Chair.

I just think that Kucinich and Hayden might have been better going after our Dems in the Senate who have Power than addressing Dean. Others feel that Deans reply was terrible, and others feel that the letters were well place or like me, the letters weren't addressed to the correct person. :shrug: I just Kerry would take a lead...he's the one.

:shrug: This is a small point of difference but it's not huge...and that's why it was good to discuss it, with you...without flames.

Thanks. :-)

[welshTerrier2]

50. and you, koko ...

interesting as always !!

[OHdem10]

18. OH SO True--the pain of division

simply is not worth it. If each wing of the party could just
look at the the assets of the other wings.(I will admit there is one wing we have to really gulp over) Now that was not nice--just having
abit of fun.

I consider myself a Liberal left of center. Because there are times
I can see the need for compromise--some count me moderate.DO Not EVER Call Me ACentrist.I am further left than that group. I think
as a starting point we individually and collectivily have to find
those hot button issues whichmakes us reflexively get our backs up.
For me the most important issues have to do with Social Justice-Health Care, Medicare, Medicaid Welfare--our responsibility to the the poor and disadvantaged--you get the pic. On these I ca be almost rigid.

Furthermore I feel a responsibility to defend what I affectionately call the Peace Wing of our Party and those persons whose views on Social Justice are more "lefty " than mine.

If the party could maturely look at those on the Left as"OUR CONSCIENCE)"--this is what they are. For good or ill, they emanate the democratic party values. Therefore Moderates and Centrists should not be uncomfortable when real Democratic values are expressed. The Lefties by the same token could at times tone it down a bit. Yes, I am worlds" worst to be saying this--I am so blunt and straightforward often. I just believe united we stand divided we fall. For Gosh Sakes, our Values do surpass the values of the Republican Party. We have become too hesitant in declaring them.
It is almost as if we are afraid we will offend someone. The DLC ,every now then needs to spend time with those more left of center and those on the Left. It does not hurt to have an examination of conscience every now and then--Why I am a Democrat..This is in no way meant to be meanspirited. We have to be honest and straightforward. (Some of those votes in the House and Snate) make Dems like me cringe.

As a party, we have to accept with no shame the fact that we
have a Peace Movement(Anti-War)Movement within the party.

There is nothing wrong with being against war or wishing to seek peaceful solutions. I supported the Afhgan War but not the Iraq War.
I simply cannot be "no war". I believe wars should be used as a
last resort and have serious problems with pre-emptive war.
Wars should be a last resort. We should have
leaders who can be trusted by people who share my beliefs and
those who are in Peace Wing.

Mutual Respect is the key. An attitude that all groups have valuable contributions to make. No Acting Embarassed over any one wing
in our Party. No one group has all the ansers. We have already
lost too many elections. We better get busy.

OHLib10

[Mr_King]

19. Democrats United

Something I made a few weeks back

[Sparkly]

21. That's beautiful, Mr. King!!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Mr_King!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[OneBlueSky]

20. the only way we will have anything approaching unity is . . .

when all factions agree that the party must divorce itself from corporate influence and control . . . unless that happens, discussing our differences is pretty meaningless . . .

[janx]

22. That has already happened.

We're taking it to the states and communities. Where have you been?

[omega minimo]

24. !

:kick:

[omega minimo]

23. Can't see the corporate managed forest for the genetically enhanced trees

I agree with the call for civil discussion (easier to hear when folks aren't YELLIN-- when the yellin starts, nobody listens) and the need to reconnect with disenfranchised (in every sense) voters.

HOWEVER the first order of bidness is a great big ole reality check. On DU I see the various points of view, places in life and comfort zones expressed-- and respect everybody doing what they can where they are.

HOWEVER the ONLY problem we have right now is people taking a real honest look at the PLACE WE ARE LIVING IN NOW.

Begin with Erika's point in # 12. "Did we lose elections or were they stolen? That's the first issue to face. From all the polls everywhere, the American people are on our side of the issues, not the GOP." 

Then we have OneBlueSky in #20." the only way we will have anything approaching unity is when all factions agree that the party must divorce itself from corporate influence and control . . . unless that happens, discussing our differences is pretty meaningless..."

Bogus elections (disenfranchised voters)
+
Corporate influence (of, well EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!) (including your Congress that didn't stand up for you against a second bogus election?)
=
UR Screwed USA!

Your country has been hijacked. Your lives have been ransomed, The priorities begin with being honest about our captivity and not being so damn busy cleaning out the cage.

This is the OPEN SECRET known by many from all walks of life and political stripes; these themes appear over and over again on DU as well. Until we connect THESE dots and connect with ALL those people, we'll be politely discussing the view while wearing our comfy, climate-controlled blindfolds.

:hi:

[KoKo]

26. Kick...because I was urging MOREdiscussion not less about our Democratic

differences. I wasn't urging unity for Democrats at this point because we already "did unity" and were not so sucessful. Now is the time to really decide what policies we can support and what policies need to be tossed because they haven't been working.

To heal our differences we might need a lot of "Lively Discussion" short of flames but still lively enough that we can get angry with each other but debate the points that anger us. I worry that all lively discussions will now be locked in favor of unity.

[NMDemDist2]

42. don't worry about that KoKo, lively discussion is appreciated and

encouraged.

What gets locked are flame wars and broad brush attacks.

Civility is (IMO) a vastly underrated virtue :evilgrin:

[suigeneris]

27. Yes more discussion but how about some restraint as well.

It seems to me that some people have to deliver a rant against some particular Dem pol whenever that person's name is mentioned. It's like they've got a button that they won't turn off and no matter the subject or the context, say that name - push that button - and you get the negativity.

So, while sure, the bulk of people who don't feel compelled to do that sort of thing should cut the person some slack, it would be even better if people who are inclined to launch into a mini-attack every single time someone's name comes up could practice a little self-restraint as well.

[suigeneris]

28. I don't know if anybody else feels this way but

there is a cultural thing here at DU that gets in the way of my saying what I think are constructive comments on some topics.

That is, if the topic is contoversial I often steer clear of posting because I have a low posting count and I watch those who don't conform to majority opinion get attacked (often sorta subtlely but sometimes harshly). BTW, I often check and I've been here a comparatively long time, I just read a lot and don't post much. Had a little flurry lately.

I kinda see why, there really are disruptors and non-supporters, but at the same time it would be nice not to feel like you're walking on eggshells. I've got impeccable Dem and liberal credentials and would be willing to confidentially prove it from online sources to Skinner but if you get tombstoned you can't even get in to talk it over.

For me, an example is the Real ID act. I haven't read it, I don't know enough about it to comment, but I have done a lot of thinking before I ever heard of that proposed law about secure IDs. I could construct a good pro and con list and argue not just against, which so far as I have seen everyone does here, but also in favor of national standard ID cards. Some of what they offer is right up our alley and screws the crooked side of corporate America good. I don't feel free to do it for fear of getting officially slammed, so I let it go and the discussion never happens.

That can't be good.

I don't meant to whine, I'm trying to raise an issue that might get in the way of getting on the same page in a constructive way.

Anybody else ever feel that way?

[KoKo]

29. Yes...sometimes we immediately get worked up about an issue before

we try to see what might be positive. I think on the I.D. Cards I'd like to see more discussion. There is a thread here where people are battling it out and some are in favor...somewhere over in Editorials, I think.

Most of us have had such bad experience with the Bushies that we've learned that whatever they do that might have some small part that Dems might be able to accept is always legislated with so much we can't accept that it's easier (and wiser maybe) just to reject it all. We've been burned with giving our Dems the benefit of the doubt on all Bush's legislative proposals and appointments that we no longer trust our own Dems along with the Republicans to really try to compromise in a fair way.

I understand what you say. It's a fine line between flaming and discussion here on some topics. And many worry that they will be "tombstoned" if they express a contrarian view that could be interpreted to be unacceptable to DU rules, or the seeming consensus view.

[Zhade]

31. Kinda hard when the DLC wants people like the PDA to leave the party.

NT!

[proud patriot]

33. I'm hoping we can get together for 2006

I so want to impeach bush and hold the
neocons accountable for their criminal
actions.

This is my focus , I'm ready to work with
all willing to share that goal.

Let's get busy ...Time is growing short.

[KoKo]

37. We are....we are out there working.

But...what many of us are encountering in the Dem Machine in our states is kind of overwhelming and disheartening. The lack of organization, the resistence to discuss "Progressive issues" and the compliance with buying the DRE Voting Machines (paperless) because our Dems have been wined and dined along with the Repugs and pressured by the Bush HAVA act. The total lack of organization, and in some cases sabotage of those of us who are trying to bring the Democratic Party forward to a place where it stands for something clear and differentiated from the Repugs and Repug Lite's is mind boggling. (but, to be expected, I suppose..the cling to power is hard for some to give up)

It's amazing for those of us who are trying in our Red States to be active and work with the entrenched Dem officials...the resistence we get.

I think issues of difference need to be aired,instead of "locked" ....the discussions about where we agree and disagree. Maybe DU has too large a membership now to be able to have discussions about the changes and consensus we need to hammer out. But, the bitterness over the Primary lingers here, because the issues that surrounded the candidates are still with us. John Kerry really wasn't able to bring us together for more than just "pounding the pavements" to elect him. We had to put aside the differences to try to win, but they won't go away.

I hate to see these "splits" go on into 2006, though.

[killbotfactory]

34. The pissing matches over semantics get tiring

Especially from the holier-than-thou types.

[Mr_King]

35. That's right

We have to remember we all have a common enemy.

Southern "Blue Dog" Democrat or Northeastern Liberal Democrat
Midwestern Moderate Democrat or West Coast Progressive Democrat

We all have the same goals in the long run.

[KoKo]

38. But, unless you know how to really fight your enemy, the strategy...

how can you ever win overwhelmingly? We have three failed Dem Elections here. 2000,'02 and '04. Voting Fraud played a large part but our numbers should have been overwhelming.

The strategy has to be devised before we can win. And, we have to find out who are the best Generals and the Troops who will succeed.

We don't know that yet because we are trying to find out and that means we have to fight together to find those we can trust who will be the leaders. :shrug:

[gulfcoastliberal]

36. Differences or repuke sellouts?

Because that is what all those dems are who vote with repukes on things like corporate-written bankruptcy legislation, et al. Fucking sellouts.

[Mark E. Smith]

41. Honestly, I'd Rather Go Bowling

I personally have never had a problem supporting Democratic candidates. When stacked next to the primitive reactionary baboons put forward by the 'thugs, there is no question as to where my support is going to go.

Tell you what, you guys hash out all this stuff and let me know what you come up with. I can promise I'll be there to support you when that fine day arrives.

[KoKo]

43. Mark, thanks for that vote of faith for us...

:D And enjoy the bowling. But, assume if you are here on DU you came as a "seeker." Let's hope you Lurk to follow all the "fireworks."

[NMDemDist2]

44. LOL-- thanks for your vote of confidence n/t