Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[Hep]

1. To me it's not about candidates

when we talk about attacking. What I see here more than anything are indictments of Dean supporters. That's where the line is drawn for me.

[Jerseycoa]

2. Personally, I haven't attacked anybody

But I have defended my candidate and always will. If you're talking about candidates themselves attacking other candidates on issues and record, as long as it is valid and true, it's okay by me. Unity will come once there is a nominee, but to get there, candidates have a right to contrast themselves with their opponents. I don't see how else we get a legitimate nominee if voters can't tell the difference between Candidate A and Candidate B through I.

[Duder]

3. Re: candidates...

I liked Dr. Cline's perspective:

How does a candidate move the polls, i.e. effectively campaign?

'My answer: The ol' fashioned way. A candidate must do all of these things during the six to eight months prior to the primary season:
1) Craft a winning message;
2) Project a presidential image;
3) Gain credible support and endorsement;
4) Raise sufficient funds, and
5) Effectively counter political attacks.

Notice what that list does not include: Effectively attack opponents.

Negative campaigning "works," but what we also know is that effective counter measures often trump attacks. The public generally sees both tactics as negative campaigning. The public takes a dim view of the candidate that won't defend honor. Once defended against, however, the attack loses its persuasive power. We saw this happen for the first time in the electronic era when Richard Nixon defended himself against charges of financial impropriety in 1952 by giving the "Checkers" speech.'

[Ress1]

4. Go ahead and attack.

We need to be divisive if we expect to win this election. Don't vote if your man/woman of choice loses in the primaries.

[corporatewhore]

5. I think attacking other cannidates is ok

on valid points any way like the progressive values ads attacking dean on nafta and th nra have merit but not in bad taste like the osama ad.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

6. In my humble opionion

Dems should not be baited into criticizing other Dems. It makes us appear dis-jointed and un-organized. Of course that brings the Will Rogers quote to mind "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat".

Be that as it may, I holler at the TV when the various candidates are on and are asked about another Demo hoppeful. If I was the behind the scenes Dem I'd be telling ALL of them to not criticize other candidates, focus instead on what you bring to the party and how inept and dishonest the shrub is.............

[FightinNewDem]

7. Let 'er Rip!

Politics ain't beanbag.

The whole "let's be quiet and not argue" routine is silly and condescending. Let's have a healthy, boisterous debate on the issues. There are real differences between the candidates on some issues (Iraq, trade, tax policy), and I see no harm in a good, robust argument on the merits.

Look, in 1992, Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton slugged each other silly during the Maryland, Georgia and Illinois primaries, despite tha fact that they were very close on the substantive issues (moderate, fiscally responsible, pro-business, socially progressive). Despite some lingering hurt feelings, Tsongas endorsed Clinton, appeared with him at a huge rally in downtown Boston, and campaigned for him in New Hampshire. In 1976, Jimmy Carter was strengthened by a tough primary battle against Udall, Bayh, Shriver, Harris, Church, Brown, Scoop, and the draft HHH campaign.