Doesn't winning have to do with what the majority of the public thinks

[bigtree]

about the performances. Isn't that what we are trying to do in this campaign? If our candidates gave lousy speeches the day before the election and still won most of the votes, they would be winners. We would have accomplished our goal.

The overwhelming majority of polls that favor our candidate prove to me that we certainly 'won' the debate with those who we were counting on influencing. What point is there in spreading our small feelings around in contrast or in disagreement with that support? The check has been delivered and accepted. Let's keep the positive pressure on so that voters will have the confidence to act on their approval on election day.

I think most of the points raised against our candidate's performance are interesting and possibly valid, but they are irrelevant in the face of the landslide of polls that indicate widespread approval for John Edward's match-up against the incumbent Cheney. There's nothing wrong with cheerleading at this point in the race. We need to present a strong, positive face to those wavering in the middle. Grousing won't get us any votes or support.

[lostnfound]

1. I agree. nt

[Jon8503]

2. Yes, Yes, absolutely.

[RobinA]

3. Yes!!!

That's why I'm surprised that Edwards is coming across as winning. I would have thought that Cheney played better with the "we must attack anything Arab" crowd. The tide may be turning. At last. I'm seeing some Teflon starting to peel off this administration.

[lectrobyte]

4. Yeah, but health care and jobs are real issues for a lot of people

and not to mention the general upset over the backdoor draft -- at least here in the South I've even heard con. radio hosts worry about not having enough National Guard around to help out with hurricanes.

[LynnTheDem]

5. The point???

It's called DEMOCRACY.

It's what being a DEMOCRAT or PROGRESSIVE or LIBERAL means.

It's also known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

It's the OPPOSITE of MARCHING IN LOCKSTEP; what the freeping rightwingnuts specialize in doing.

It's being a DEMOCRAT or PROGRESSIVE or LIBERAL at ALL times, and not switching it off when it's best for an agenda.

It's being TRUE to the ideals of a DEMOCRAT or PROGRESSIVE or LIBERAL.

It's NOT being the opposite of the same coin as the rightwingnuttery; it's NOT "win at all and any costs" like the rightwingnuttery.

For a long while, the US majority said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do.

So should we have just shut up? Kept quiet? Gone along with the majority? Marched in lockstep?

Who decides the line?

And what offended my fellow Democrats at the office today was NOT the DISSENT shown by some DU members over Edwards' performance...it was the MOCKING and INSULTS and RUDENESS and RIDICULE and attempts at silencing all such dissent.

And every one of those members who hurl insults and ridicule at other members, or attempt to silence those who dare excercise their DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to post their own opinions have shamed themselves and spit on what the Democratic Party stands for, and have shown all who read this board that it isn't just the rightwingnuts that can do total hypocrisy.

[bigtree]

6. Yeah, but,

I do hope we can stay unified through the next few weeks here. I find disagreement stimulating and interesting, but I wouldn't stress that disagreement with our own candidate in a public forum at this late point in the election. I'm not mocking or ridiculing so I think your complaining to me about those types is out of line with my comments. I think our democratic process could stand some solidarity and support. I think our cause is not served by the grousing and exultations about Cheney's performance.

I don't think those counterfeit losers in the White House could even cast a shadow that I would acknowledge. That's not communist or freepdom, it's solid, unwavering support. That's as American and democratic as dissent. My post is a suggestion, not any type of demand (as if I could demand such solidarity). It's a plea for public unity. After all, John Edwards did nothing in that debate to sully our aspirations or goals. He did a fine job defending and supporting our needs and concerns. He deserves the same.

edit: 'Win at any cost' is a pretty compelling argument for those who have loved ones in Iraq, or have lost their job, or lost their health insurance, or have had their civil rights and liberties trampled on by this administration. I can confidently say that this election is an emergency as a Bush victory would be catastropic in the biblical sense.

[LynnTheDem]

8. I HAVE a loved one in Iraq right now

And I almost lost my soldier hubby in Iraq a few months ago.

But I STILL say NO, "win at any cost" is NOT RIGHT.

BUSHCARTEL say OBL = the devil.

OBL says bushCartel = the devil.

rightwingnuts say win at any cost.

If you put aside your ideals and beliefs when tehy're inconvenient, you'll find they soon become inconvenient more & more often.

You ARE. Or you are NOT. Being a progressive is NOT a part-time thing one can set aside when it's inconvenient.

And what shows the rightwingnuts HOW GREAT our ideals are is when they see WE CAN DISSENT, ANY TIME, free from mockery and ridicule and insults and attempts to silence such dissent.

We dissented about the invasion of Iraq. Rightwingnuts trashed us for that dissent, saying we should just shut up. What's the difference between that, and progressives telling other progressives they should just shut up???

[rock]

7. Only if you count votes

The repugs seem to have a problem with this concept.