Double standards. . .

[Brian_Expat]

Ferocious personal attacks on Dean coming unquestionably from every campaign were commonplace and remain so throughout the campaign, and when Dean complained, he was called a "whiner" and told to "get used to it" and that if he couldn't stand up to this, "Rove will eat him for lunch."

Fast forward less than a month. . .

Clark rallies ALLEGEDLY have SUPPOSED Dean supporters handing out brochures that SUPPOSEDLY are "smears" -- contrast to the direct attacks that came from other candidates against Dean without question -- and now Dean should apologize and immediately grovel to Clark.

What happened to "you whiner, get over it! Get used to it! If you cannot stand up to this kind of thing, get out of the race because Karl Rove will eat your lunch!"

This wouldn't be. . . (gasp). . . a DOUBLE STANDARD, would it? :eyes:

[Scott Lee]

1. They hate Howard because he's the frontrunner. That's all.

Pure, unadultered, unfiltered, supreme sour grapes.

[jmaier]

6. I actually

like Gov Dean though I prefer Wes Clark so that argument is specious. BTW, if Dean is hated because he's the frontrunner, how do you explain the attack Clark threads or those that have pounded on Kerry in the past? Just curious...



Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[Scott Lee]

25. They don't come close in number to the Dean attack threads.

And I'll bet if you do a search on them in DU, you'll see the glaring evidence in support of this.

Not that I'm shocked, mind you. In politics, everybody hates a winner. It's expected.

[jmaier]

62. Actually, Scott

The anti-Clark thread count has been growing steadily as he has been perceived as more of a threat. However, I wasn't commenting upon the count. Just what your take was on justifying those since Clark isn't the 'frontrunner'.

[Jack_Dawson]

2. Clark doesn't smear - he recites facts

Dean gets his underlings to sling his arrows.

[Brian_Expat]

8. "Facts" like. . .

George Bush, Condi, Rummy and Wolfy are a "great team" who he "knows well" and believes we "need there"? :eyes:

[Hep]

9. That's what they all say.

Welsome to the group.

[jmaier]

3. I don't see Wes Clark

making any complaint on this issue, Brian. Just some of his ardent supporters. This is hardly parallel to Gov Dean PERSONALLY making the request of Terry MacAuliffe.

Not, btw, do I criticize for Dean's request. I'm just pointing out that you are AGAIN distorting an issue to raise anti-Clark ire when the issue has nothing to do with Wes Clark at all.

I don't hold any candidate accountable for the behavior of a handful of ardent, though misguided, supporters. That includes Gov Dean. :-)



Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[Brian_Expat]

4. I'm not talking about the candidates, I'm talking about the standards. n/t

[jmaier]

12. Brian,

You've got to be kidding, right? You holler about every thread on Dean that's can be perceived as negative and launch a slew of similarly ill-considered and poorly executed attacks yourself. That is also a 'double standard.' Not that I condone the attack Dean threads.

I think that they reek of the same sort of immature desperation as the anti-Clark threads.



Wes Clark. He will make an extraordinary American President.

[Brian_Expat]

15. I don't holler.

I am calm, collective and fact-driven, with a hopeful vision for all which is why I support Governor Dean's campaign. :)

[redqueen]

5. Oh for goodness' sake

He was blasted for the 'mommy make it stop' stunt because he started out firing pretty hard at the other candidates.

Get a grip.

[Hep]

7. I'll go you one more

some of the whinier Kerry supporters complained that Dean attacked Kerry while he was in the hospital and still claim that if Dean can't handle it he should drop out. Is it possible to have a triple standard?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. Are you making this up?

What your source for this? What are the actual facts, apart from your biased characterizations? Link, news article - something?

[Brian_Expat]

11. Just check out the posts here on DU demanding Dean apologize. n/t

[jmaier]

13. Yep

Like this one ... another useless, inflammatory act. I've called the thread author out on that one as well.

[Brian_Expat]

16. It's important to call Clark campaigners on their behavior

I'd do the same for Dean supporters if they were being as unreasonable. Fortunately, Dean supporters tend to be very reasonable and I haven't had to do so yet.

[jmaier]

17. *grin*

You must read very, very selectively. :eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

20. No, I read carefully to minimize bias

That's why I am a Dean supporter.

[redqueen]

22. Wow

:wow:

This is.... priceless. :D

[JohnKleeb]

29. apparently reasonable is calling another candiate a gnome or elf

;) I am not gonna gripe about that, but I do remember my guy being called such a thing, if I attack its because of one thing, issues, and I generally dont feel the need to do that at all.
Just sayin, all the camps have acted unreasonable in past, present, and future, no absolute saints, no absoulte devils. It goes all ways IMO.

[redqueen]

30. Yep, right as usual JK

:) I remember those attacks well, also, which is why I found that comment so shocking.

You're absolutely right, no saints, no devils. :D

:yourock:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Oh, I get it, this is the continuation of a flame war from another thread

that I didn't read.

[Padraig18]

14. No one else seems to need any, so why should he?

We have THREE "Dean smearing Clark with flyers" threads on the front page as we speak, and not ONE link in any of the 3 to the alleged 'flyer'.

[slinkerwink]

19. exactly! it's like when kerry brought up a so-called dean attack flyer

and didn't even produce it on the newshow or even any evidence to it, he just mentioned it as another attack on Dean, or to make him look like he's playing dirty.

[wyldwolf]

18. Pure hypocrisy!

Some Dean supporters are becoming hypocrits in the grandest order.

Dean keeps getting busted for doing things Dean's far left followers formerly condemned Bush for doing.

But now those things are OK.

They're rationalized away.

And they only thing you guys can do is repeat the same stories on Clark over and over. Must be mental masturbation.

Nothing new to talk about from Clark (accept him rising in the polls), so you have to resort to recycled and previously debunked info - hoping you can influence a newbie or two who have never seen your conspiratorial rantings.

[Brian_Expat]

21. "Dean's far left supporters" -- see what I mean?

If someone started talking about Clark's "reactionary right supporters," or Dean went after Clark on TV, there'd be threads talking about how unfair that is.

Yet bashing of Dean is OK, and if anyone notes how unreasonable it can get (i.e. "Dean's mom even thinks he's conservative" -- that's an actual Clark campaigner thread), he gets shouted down as a "wimp."

[slinkerwink]

24. exactly.

[wyldwolf]

34. Here is where you are wrong...

My post qualified my "Dean's far left supporters" statement by saying first: some Dean supporters.

Making a faux comparison by saying "Clark's reactionary right supporters" would be misguided. Whereas there are self proclaimed greens, socialists, and communists on this board who support Dean, there are no self proclaimed rightwingers on the board who support Clark.

Given that, lumping some Dean supporters into the "far left" category is proper and factual.

And it is Dean's self proclaimed and admitted far left followers who railed against Bush for things like secret energy meetings, sealed records, cronyism, corporatism, idealogical copulation with the NRA, dirty tricks against other candidates, etc., etc., but who now rationalize Dean's similar activities away.

I think you have a problem with the definition of the word "bashing."

To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly

Reporting current news events about Howard Dean is not bashing. IF Dean keeps making the news like he's doing, you're going to see it posted here and discussed. Sorry - that is what a discussion forum is for.

However, reposting and reposting and reposting and reposting the same months-years old articles in a sad attempt to draw the spotlight from Dean is bashing. That news is already well known. The only purpose for it to be posted again and again (besides to draw fire away from Dean's constant gaffes) is to criticize.

I think the problem here is that it is slowly dawning on Dean's far left supporters that he isn't the man they thought he was and they're in denial about it.

But the rest of us always knew who and what Dean was. A politician to be sure - no different than any other.

[Hep]

26. Far left? Make up your mind?

Dean's too centrist his supporters are far left. Hmmm. Someone is posting with a concussion or something!

[wyldwolf]

35. Like my post said: SOME Dean supporters are far left

there are self proclaimed greens, socialists, and communists on this board who support Dean.

Far left.

[Hep]

37. That's not what your post said at all.

Maybe you should reread your posts before hitting submit?

[wyldwolf]

39. Maybe you should reread my post, Hep

Wait, I'll quote it for you:

Some (See Hep? "SOME" is a qualifier) Dean supporters are becoming hypocrits in the grandest order.

Dean keeps getting busted for doing things Dean's far left followers (Look, Hep! Here is what "some" from above qualified) formerly condemned Bush for doing.

[Hep]

41. Wrongo

You're responsible for your message. You want to leave it purposefully vague, it's cool. But you can hardly be surprised when someone calls you on it.

[wyldwolf]

45. Righto -- and I'm not surprised someone wrongly "calls me" on it

....with a kneejerk reaction.

The post stands. Started with "some Dean supporters" which qualified "far left."

I guess for someone who looks under every rock for something to whine about, it was ripe for someone to pretend to interpret it differently.

[Hep]

54. Hardly kneejerk

Some only qualifies "far left" if you point it out afterwards. There were a ton of clear ways to make your comment. You either chose the ambiguous way or you just didn't put a lot of thought into your syntax. I forgive you.

[wyldwolf]

56. Very kneejerk

But like I said. You have a reading comprehension problem which probably stems from not reading challenging material.

[Hep]

58. There's your kneejerk

But thanks for playing! WOW!

[wyldwolf]

61. Nah. It was thought out, which means it wasn't "kneejerk"

proving once again your problems with basic writing techniques and word definitions.

And your "But thanks for playing?" WOW! THAT was original!

[Scott Lee]

27. "Far left?" Now THAT'S funny!

I have to hand it to Howard Dean - he's got his enemies so confused they don't know if they're coming or going.

Hilarious!

[wyldwolf]

36. Like my post said: SOME Dean supporters are far left - like you

there are self proclaimed greens, socialists, and communists on this board who support Dean - like you.

[Hep]

38. For the love of god

Show us the quote where you said "some Dean supporters are far left"

ESL, I'm all for it.

[wyldwolf]

40. For the love of god, must I hold your hand?

Here ya' go!

From my original post:

Some (See Hep? "SOME" is a qualifier) Dean supporters are becoming hypocrits in the grandest order.

Dean keeps getting busted for doing things Dean's far left followers (Look, Hep! Here is what "some" from above qualified) formerly condemned Bush for doing.

[Hep]

42. Repeating it does not remove the abiguity.

Maybe the whole problem here is that I expect a higher level of discourse. It's cool. Chalk it up to pseudomisunderstanding.

[wyldwolf]

46. Repeating it in hopes that people reading it have more than...

elementary reading comprehension.

The post stands. Started with "some Dean supporters" which qualified "far left."

I guess for someone who looks under every rock for something to whine about, it was ripe for someone to pretend to interpret it differently.

[Hep]

48. Yeah right!

Two different sentences and you're throwing qualifiers around a madman. You must consider yourself toe ee cummings of political discourse!

Good job, Golf Claps for you!

[wyldwolf]

49. Hep, you are aware, aren't you...

that posts typically consist of several sentences that tie an idea together?

So why is it so hard for you to comprehend that "two different sentences" are related in the overall idea of the post?

It really is either a reading comprehension issue with you or you're just not familiar with how qualifiers are used in writing.

[Hep]

52. I'm well aware

that trying to make a qualifier jump from sentence to sentence can be effective if you are trying to insinuate two things at one, or if you are trying to say one thing while making it look like you are saying something else.

My reading comprehension is fine. Your ability to post clear thoughts appears suspect. But like I said, it's not like you had it right in the first place.

[wyldwolf]

55. You just confirmed it, then.

that trying to make a qualifier jump from sentence to sentence can be effective if you are trying to insinuate two things at one, or if you are trying to say one thing while making it look like you are saying something else.

Not only is it effective, it is a commonly used journalistic technique. Do you now rail against age old and accepted writing practices if they're used in reference to Howard Dean?

What I insinuated is that some Dean supporters are admitted greens, socialists, and communists.

Perfect use of the qualifier.

[Hep]

57. It's a commonly used deceptive technique

And a relatively underhanded device in debate. But that's OK. It's fairly common. The fact of the matter is, you left it ambiguous enough that my interpretation and that of others aren't wrong either. It was just so badly phrased that we needed you to come in and make it clear.

Perhaps it's about attention!

[wyldwolf]

63. Only to someone who resents that is was used in reference to Dean...

..and only to someone who had to have it pointed out to them.

Debate?

Not ambiguous - just not easy to comprehend to those prone to skimming something then exhibiting a kneejerk reaction to it.

For the rest of us, there is reading/considering/reponding.

[Hep]

43. Repeating it does not remove the abiguity.

Maybe the whole problem here is that I expect a higher level of discourse. It's cool. Chalk it up to pseudomisunderstanding.

[wyldwolf]

47. Repeating it in hopes that people reading it have more than

elementary reading comprehension.

The post stands. Started with "some Dean supporters" which qualified "far left."

I guess for someone who looks under every rock for something to whine about, it was ripe for someone to pretend to interpret it differently.

[RetroLounge]

59. Not what you said

Some Dean supporters are becoming hypocrits in the grandest order.

Dean keeps getting busted for doing things Dean's far left followers formerly condemned Bush for doing.

2 separate sentences, 2 separate thoughts.

If that's what you meant, then fine, go edit it.

[wyldwolf]

64. Exactly what I said...

2 separate sentences within the context of one post. Posts usually consist of one idea made up sentences supporting it.

If your posts consist of separate sentences with separate thoughts, they may not make much sense.

[bushclipper]

65. I didn't have any problems understanding it.

It was quite clear to me.

[wyldwolf]

66. Thanks! I didn't think I had to write on an elementary level around here

..but some folks need short sentences.

[Hoppin_Mad]

32. Count me as one of Dean's "Far Left Supporters" and proudly so ! -eom-

[windansea]

23. TANK

it's Clarkspeak for POOP

[Capn Sunshine]

28. You guys all had your army toys taken away as kids didn't you

I think the whole fascination with the military imagery belies a certain mentality, a problematic inability to adjust to anti-war trappings and admit to yourselves the military is never the answer only a response.

That we feed this voracious machine our children every generation or so at vast enrichment to a select few seems lost on many in the Clark campaign.

for the record :

WAR IS BAD,MMMMMMKAY?

[windansea]

50. sigmund...is that you?

:hippie:

[Hep]

33. Something missing, allow me:

[windansea]

51. actually the DU

comes out of the big barrel
:)

[Hep]

53. The DU comes out

wherever they want it to come out.

[TexasSissy]

44. Nope. It's different. One is being an adult by openly engaging

Dean in his past record, to the news and face to face.

The other is having little elves sneak around to the others' supporters' and hand out one-sided, possibly false, leaflets. I believe Dean has made one public negative statement recently, then they came up with the new "strategy."

Big difference, there.

Still, you don't hear anyone calling for Daddy McAuliffe to step in and stop them from pickin' on him. "Waaaaahhhh Waaaahhhh!"

If Dean's supporters want to waste their valuable time that way, that's their decision. Clark will deal with whatever information or falsehoods are spread, and then he'll move on to complete the task of winning the nomination and the general election. Go, Wes!

[RetroLounge]

60. Again, no proof offered

"The other is having little elves sneak around to the others' supporters' and hand out one-sided, possibly false, leaflets. "

Can youprove this, or just think if you repeat it enough it becomes proof? Sounds like a Rove Trick, actually...