This is where we may have to be careful

[politicasista]

That is, alienating fellow supporters? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3022553&mesg_id=3023048

[ProSense]

1. Sorry, but why would anyone take offense

to calling out the RW attacks on Kerry? The media and the RW pundits and blogs have made this the message! The article on the first day of his trip led with the botched joke What is this about?

There seems to be a prevailing notion that everyone else is sensitive and Kerry supporters have no feelings; therefore we should put up with the attacks! No response allowed from Kerry supporters!

[rox63]

2. Maybe he's not longer a Kerry supporter?

I suppose it happens... :shrug:

[Mass]

3. I am not sure what happened here.

While I sometimes am worried about some threads or exchanges alienating people, I did not see anything wrong in this particular thread. Prosense was just stating Kerry was an excellent speaker.

You can be an excellent speaker and still not connect with some people (I certainly do not connect with Edwards, but he still is an excellent speaker), but the fact that he is a poor speaker has been developped by the RW and the media during the 04 elections (this theme was not present before). This has nothing to do with the fact that some connect and other do not.

I have no clue why paulk took this position, that he has taken in other threads. May be, if he sees this thread, he can tell us because I was a little bit surprised in this particular thread.

[wisteria]

4. I think I understand.

I don't think the post means Paulk doesn't support Kerry anymore. The point I think is that there are some others who did view kerry as "inarticulate" based on his Iraq War position. Personally, I don't see this as inarticulate as much as a difficult positon to explain simply. Bush's was so easy- he was for the war and security, blah,blah,blah. Senator Kerry on the other hand voted to give Bush the authority to do what was necessary- even wage war as a last resort, then he said, Bush should of never of gone to war,he wouldn't have, he was mislead and it was the wrong war at the wrong time. I got it, but others who did not follow closely did not. The media didn't bother explaining it well either. Bush's position was so simple and easy. And it was hard for Senator Kerry to explain the complexity of his position. I don't think anyone else could have done any better though. That is why people like Hillary say very little.
Frankly, this is an example of the media dumbing down America. If the media would do its job and report and explain things accurately, people would get it.

[karynnj]

8. I agree with you on Paulk

He still posts positive things on Kerry. He is warning us that we can sometimes come on too strong. It is hard to know exactly where the line is.

I think the concept of something being a "RW frame" is something we have discussed here and we have a mental list of ones used for decades to hit Kerry. In a way, we use shorthand to say that people think "a RW line" not because it is there own observation - but because it has been repeated over and over by RW people originally and by opponents.

He has a point in that when we respond to someone we know is a good Democrat saying that he/she is repeating RW points that will immediately get their back up and not consider any proof we are offering to the contary. I intend to stop referring to RW points - especially as they are now (sadly) becoming CW points.

It is critical that we counter them, but that we do it by showing countray information - as Prosense's OP did. The other thing is that we are seeing one thing that is interesting. There are only a few areas where Kerry is faulted - on being able to win and that he is not articulate/can't connect. (There are still a few IWR people) There are almost NO people challanging his ideas/actions/ or platform.

Kerry's communication skills are demonstrated in all the multimedia stuff on his web site. The can't win one is harder. He benefited last time by convincing people he could. The problem is that they see the future Republican candidate as tougher to beat than W - which is likely not true and they ignore the fact that the opinion on the war has changed. So, they say that he would lose because he didn't beat Bush. I've tried re-hashing the primaries as there has been a real effort to re-write history - including in Elizabeth Edwards' book.

I do agree with 'sistah and Paul that we need to avoid calling things - that others state - RW memes, even if they are.

[wisteria]

9. I think yours is a good strategy.

Counter the negative comments on kerry with positive comments or observations, rather than attack those who criticize him as falling for, being or using RW talking points.

Also, I have noticed the same thing in the arguments against him. There really aren't many, just the big one being he can't win and I think that can be addressed nicely with as you say, by rehashing the primaries and in some cases the election itself. 08 is not 04, and the whole canvas has changed this time.

[karynnj]

10. That thread though was very good though

because even if someone scanned Prosense's links, it is clear that MAJOR re-writing of history has tried to take away some of the really good things in 2004. We are all here because of what we saw. Kerry did have an amazing nomination win with the media pushing many other candidates, but not him.

Seeing this mornings interview, the sense I come away with is that Senator Kerry is doing what he thinks is right. He is focused on an incredibly messed up middle east. He is able to see and describe just how awful things are, while crediting any movement to the good. There are very few people capable of doing both - and I see only Kerry. This is important because, while we need to recognize when further efforts are futile - it is as easy to ignore little openings that could make things somewhat better.

Kerry was a great candidate in 2004- not because he had the best hair or was labelled as cool - but because he gave people the sense that he knew what could be done to solve problems, really listened to the views of knowlegdable people, and gave people a very strong sense that they could trust him. All those things are real and in times of extreme trouble these characteristics are needed.

His biggest hurdle is a catch 22. He needs to prove that he can win, which it is hard to do until he does win - but he needs the votes of those who think he would be the best President, but who fear he can't win.

[sandnsea]

5. Well, hmmmm,

First of all, I think Paul and ProSense are both adult enough to be able to disagree without anybody feeling alienated.

Second, Paul is a bit more centrist. He and I have disagreed on quite a few issues. It doesn't surprise me that he doesn't see the same orchestrated media attack, or understand how easily media fallacies becomome reality, even for self-important professors who are just looking for a reason to attack a Democrat. It's rather ironic; smug, grandiose liberal elites bloviating about what it takes to 'connect' to the 'common man'. Anyway, that's fine, that's just the way he sees things.

Paul's going to make his decision about who to support for President and it isn't going to be swayed by anything we say or do. It wouldn't surprise me if he decided to support Hillary or maybe Biden, they're more in line with how he sees things, at least from my perspective.

[JI7]

6. Paul supports Kerry

i think he just doesn't think the attacks have that much influence. he says how Kerry was able to make it considering how much he was attacked in the Primary.

i think it's more that he sees some of the criticism of those who are critical of Kerry as comparable to what supporters of candidates who lost to Kerry did. remember how they were and how it turned people off ?

only problem here is that the OP was about the right wing and what they do. Paul has to admit that it's a huge problem. not just with Kerry but all Democrats.

[sandnsea]

7. What I meant

Was that Paul is more than welcome to choose whoever he wants to support in the primary. I know he has been a great JK supporter, but if he decides to go with someone else, it shouldn't change our respect and friendship towards him.

I understand what you mean about not turning into the kind of single-minded supporters who see an attack at every turn, and can never admit a candidate made serious mistakes all by themselves. It's true that the media isn't wrong every time they say something. I think there could have been an honest discussion about what JK meant in his 1971 testimony, for instance. The rest of it was pure garbage and the media should be called on their peddling of bullshit.