Obama comments= Democratic talking point for the convention

[JCMach1]

That's the script folks... get ready for more of it all week long...

It's a DLC lovefest and Bush's good intention will be celebrated by all...

:grr:

It's going to be a FLUFFY BUNNY kind of convention.

[AP]

1. And Dems will get enough of the votes in the middle to take back control..

...of the government so that we don't continue down the destructive path of imperialism.

[Radical Activist]

7. How do Dems win swing votes while holding back our strongest arguments?

The issue is honesty. That's what beat Bush 1 and how the GOP beat Gore. Calling or at least implying Bush is a liar is the best way to defeat him.

[AP]

13. Our strongest argument is NOT that Bush is evil and that Democrats

care more about peace than about national security. That may work for a few people on the left, but it isn't going to win a national election. (And '68 and '72 proves as much.)

Our best argument is that Democrats can do a better job of making America stronger and safer by doing EVERYTHING: by caring about national security AND caring about jobs and healthcare.

Have you paid attention to what Kerry says on the campaign trail?

[Radical Activist]

20. I wrote that our strongest argument is that Bush is a liar

who can't be trusted with power. The side that used that argument most effectively won in 92 and 2000. That should be very easy to do this time, unless Dems are too spineless.

[Eric J in MN]

68. Yes, Bush is a liar is our best argument. People won't vote for

a man they don't trust, and there is plenty of evidence Bush is a liar.

Bush said we invaded Iraq because Saddam wouldn't allow in UN weapons inspectors.

Saddam DID allow in UN weapons inspectors.

[Sophree]

83. I disagree.

I know Bush is a liar and there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

It's a gut feeling, but I think his biggest weakness is his incompetance. Saying he is misguided is a genteel way of calling him incompetant AND a liar at the same time.

Also, I'll say again- I think you guys are missing some of the psychological factors at work. Good, but ill-informed people are not going to have an easy time accepting that we did such an awful thing (Iraq War,) or that they supported it. If they, meaning the average American, especially the swing voters, are moving in the direction of- It was a mistake, Bush was "misguided" in his ideological quest to remove Saddam. Let's vote him out and maybe this Kerry guy can clean up the mess.

This is our best strategy. There is a way to be brutal without being ugly or nasty. Let's do it smart.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Yes, I remember well how Bill Clinton Spewed Anger all through 1992...

Calling Bush I a "traitor", criticising the first gulf war, and demanding that the USA redistribute all wealth and send the heads of all corporations to re-education camps. Whoo, I remember that campaign well, how some of us lesser democrats told Clinton, wrongly, to project optimism and hope instead of his natural anger and deep, righteous resentment towards an evil republican power structure. That's why the 92 Democratic Convention was such a success, because Clinton chose those angry songs by rage against the machine and Public Enemy to cap off his acceptance speech and hammer home the point that the democratic party wasn't takin' any more shit from the maaaaaaaan!

How could I forget.

[Radical Activist]

37. Read my lips, no new taxes

Do you remember that? Bush 1 was defeated because he was made out to be a liar. That clip was played thousands of times.

As for the rest of your post, wtf are you talking about? I said the issue was honesty. It worked in '92 and it can work in '04. Next time you want to reply to one of my posts why don't you try READING IT first! If your going to type a long obnoxious diatribe you could at least respond to more than the subject line.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I think Kerry's been hittin the honesty issue pretty hard.

I don't think the messages "Bush is incompetent" and "Bush is dishonest" are mutually exclusive.

But what worked in '92? It wasn't "No new taxes".. admittedly, that sank Bush with some of his Republican Base.. But those are not the folks who are going to be swayed by calling this bush a "liar" on Iraq-- and it was hardly a centerpiece of the campaign. No, the meme that propelled the Clinton Campaign was, "it's the economy, stupid". Not battling the Bushies on Culture war nonsense or calling them out as "evil" or "liars".. You want to rehash '92? The GOP had a convention that was full of piss, vinegar, anger and vitriol, and they alienated a big chunk of America. Again, Clinton projected hope and positive change, and he won. End of story.

[GiovanniC]

102. Honesty?

"The issue is honesty. That's ... how the GOP beat Gore."

First of all, the GOP never beat Gore. He won the popular vote and if the Florida votes had been properly counted, he would have had the electoral vote as well.

Second, HONESTY had nothing to do with what the GOP did to Gore. NOTHING.

[AP]

104. GOP "won" 2000 on this message: "we'll do everything Clinton did but

we'll lower your taxes more and do it with a smaller government."

That's how they won. And Gore ran against Clinton for a long time, but closed rapidly when he stopped turning his back on Clinton and said in the last week, "if you liked the last eight years, then vote for me."

That's more or less what happened.

The media hated on Gore for a long time, but, really, those two competing messages were what people were voting on.

A lot of voters voted against Gore because they didn't like Clinton, and Gore sort of gave them a reason to think that attitude was right because Gore himself wouldn't embrace Clinton -- as if to say, yes, we should be mad at Clinton. But when people realized that there were more important things that Clinton did than get a blow job from Monica Lewinsky (because Gore finally talked about them) Gore started to do better.

[unfrigginreal]

12. Yeah, convincing voters in the middle...

that Bush isn't really such a bad guy, is sure to win a bunch of votes for us.

[AP]

15. Attacking Bush doesn't work. Telling us why you're the best works. '00...

...anyone?

Gore LOST votes by striding up to Bush on stage at that debate, crowding him, and then letting Bush make a joke about it.

That was a visual metaphor for the problem Democrats have when they focus on Bush as evil and bad and stupid, rather than telling us why they're better.

Johnson said nobody wins an election telling Americans what they're against. You win an election by telling Americans what you're for.

[unfrigginreal]

22. "You win an election by telling Americans what you're for."

You can't do that without giving the other guy a pass? Baloney. As for your take on what cost Gore votes in the last election, I'd suggest you focus on the SCLM.

[Eric J in MN]

71. That gesture by Al Gore being emphasized was a symptom

of a whacky anti-Gore press.

It doesn't prove that we shouldn't call Bush a liar.

[AP]

79. I didn't need the press to interpret that one for me. I new it was a bad..

...idea the second I saw him do it.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. I think convincing them he's incompetent (for which the evidence abounds)

works better than screaming at them that he's evil.

Of course, some folks just like to scream, apparently.

[chimpymustgo]

2. Please stop this. What is with this fury against our own people?

Obama didn't say some things exactly the way some people might have wanted him to - and people are now swearing the're going to vote repuke, dammit.

Is this a joke? Should this be in the Lounge?

This overheated, over righteous disgust is absurd.

Now let's go have a party and celebrate our great ticket!

[JCMach1]

3. I like Obama (he's great)!

He has been scripted for the convention... that's all.

[madfloridian]

14. So has Dean, Jerald. They are having the speeches done for them.

You are right. Sometimes warm and cuddly is not enough. And it is sometimes just not appropriate.

[JCMach1]

18. One of things that really worries me about this race is the kind of

passive campaign that was run in 2002. There is a great danger there.

Bush has already gone negative in a major way (as everyone knows).

The gauntlet has been tossed.

[Rose Siding]

23. Kerry's the only one writing his own speech.

He should be ok. Saying things like "I say to you today..." will be appropriate in this venue.

[Blue_Roses]

4. EXACTLY

:bounce:

[JCMach1]

6. Not disgust on my part... just trying to explain WHY he would say

that...

[AP]

8. This is whe the Republicans do shit like the IWR and the IW:

they know Democrats are damned if they do, damned if they don't. On the one hand they can be portrayed as anti-national security to people in the middle, and on the other hand, as anti-peace to people on the left.

Does anyone actually believe a brilliant lawyer committed to social justice doesn't understand how imperialism works? Or doesn't understand how politics work?

Come on!

Obama knows what he's doing. Some DU'ers need to get a clue about politics.

[Kanary]

29. you're providing the koolaid for that celebration party?

[madfloridian]

30. It is not fury, it is called questioning. Jerald was quite right .

Obama was very passionate before about this. Read his previous stance on the war, and then see why we are upset.

SNIP.."MR. RUSSERT: In 2002 in October, you gave a speech at an anti-war rally and said this. "What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove"--the president's political adviser--"to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."END SNIP

How do you go from there to here so drastically? That was a wonderful passionate statement. Why did he change so?

[Sophree]

77. madfloridian

I understand where you are coming from. The most (unintentionally) funny part of the interview was when Russert asked how a State Rep. could know what Senators and Presidents could not! :D

But Obama was so impressive in that interview. I think his criticism of the Bush Admin. was strong, yet dignified. His presentation of the Kerry message was very clear and appealing.

Like I said in the other Meet the Press thread, if all Democrats speak so thoughtfully and eloquently, we've got a great chance at winning this thing. Even though he (and the rest of us here) were against the war, we have to move forward and put aside our differences. At least until after November.

[madfloridian]

80. I have said I will vote for them. I have donated to them.

Even to Obama as a Dean Dozen. However I do reserve the right to be critical and question.

[Sophree]

84. Yes, you most certainly do.

:-)

[Walt Starr]

5. It may draw in the middle

and push the left to Nader out of spite.

Dangerous.

[JCMach1]

10. The Kerry people have done the polling and found the LEFT

base is sticking NO MATTER WHAT!

And guess what... we will see quite a lot of that NO MATTER WHAT this week...

[AP]

19. Why not stick? Do you think Kerry is going to invade Iran? Vote Nader...

...if you think that's going to happen.

If you think he's not, then "stick" and give Kerry room to appeal to people in the middle so he can definitely win.

Be a team player.

[madfloridian]

74. That is what he needs to tell us to earn our vote.

If he does not clarify his position, then we might vote Nader. There is no room to appeal to the middle when lives are at stake. He needs to put forth his view.

[AP]

90. You need to be told that? Isn't this perfectly clear?

This is what bothers me so much.

You're managing a campaign right now, right? JCM was in a campaign.

I think these are things you should realize if you are that close to a campaign.

You say you want to stop war, but you're actually thinking of voting for Nader in close state because you want Kerry to make the subtle so obvious that it ends up costing him precious votes in the middle? Hello.

[chimpymustgo]

17. "Push the left to Nader out of spite"...well it they're that STUPID...

they are beyond help and hope.

We have a great ticket, a great party, and we are poised for victory. But don't let that upset you!

[Walt Starr]

24. There will come a point for many on the left where they will see

no difference between Kerry and Bush.

some have already been pushed over that edge. Others are teetering.

For me, I'll wait and see. Come four years from now if we're still occupying Iraq, I vote Republican.

[joanski01]

9. Don't worry, there will be

plenty of bush*-bashing at this convention -- just not by the top dogs. I think it was Governor Rendell who said that.

[JCMach1]

11. I really don't see an Ann Richard's moment...

However, I also don't expect Gore (especially) to follow the script.

[Rose Siding]

16. Anger isn't 'electable'

I think the theory is that most people (supposed viewers) don't have enough information to understand the anger -or that being mad somehow doesn't allow for one to have any kind of plan involving hopefulness.

I disagree. I think the general public is disgusted with our political leaders and would respond to some spirited criticism of obvious failured policy. The challenge would be to get past the media to convince the coveted fence sitters that walking and gumchewing can be accomplished simultaneously.

[JCMach1]

21. Also Kerry and Edwards are in a 'doublebind' over Iraq

because of their votes... that has ALWAYS been a problem for this race.

[CaTeacher]

25. Well this sucks.

When did the Democrats become the "pro-war" party?

When did the Democrats become the "pro-gun" party?

When did the Democrats become the "pro-death penalty" party?

When did the Democrats start to stifle free speech? (as is happening at the convention?)

There are so many important things that I disagree with--I cannot even list them all. Yes--I am voting for Kerry--but there are no illusions here--he is not MY candidate and he is not going to fight for MY issues.

Tell me--should I be happy about this?

[madfloridian]

26. Yes, be happy and accept your fate.

And if you speak out you shall be assimilated.

Just kidding.
:hi:

[wtmusic]

27. In an ideal world, no

Would President Kerry be better than President Bush? Undoubtedly.

The work begins on January 20, 2005 when it's payback time for Mr. Kerry. Those that supported him are going to demand some suppport on liberal issues in return.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Will you have the mild or really mild Pablum?

Perhaps some unflavored Jell-O for dessert? If you're feeling daring, you might like to try some cold mashed potatoes. All carefully prepared by our DLC trained chefs. All meals guaranteed to be tepid.

Afterwards, you can while the night away listening to the mellow sounds of Lawrence Welk while enjoying the stupor.

[okasha]

31. Barak Obama's remarks

There are two ways to look at Bush's pronouncements in re: WMD's, Iraq, etc.:

1. He lied.

2. He really believed what he said. (Translation: He's too stupid, too incurious and too ignorant to demand actual facts from his staff and/or Unka Dick.)

Obama chose 2. It's polite on the surface, while really no more flattering to Shrub than 1. In fact, it's less so. LBJ was a liar among liars, but no one doubted his intelligence.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Oh, What a crock..

As Ricard E. Grant might have said back when he was still edgy, "Get back to your fig-bottling!"

Obama's words should be taken in context. There is a southern (not that obama is southern) style of linguistic discourse whereby you pay your opponent a compliment before delivering the criticism. Yes, you say that Bush's intentions were good. He's a well-intentioned imbecile who, nevertheless, really screwed things up. Makes him sound like the child who has to be given a helmet and a leash to keep him from eating rocks and hurting himself. (no offense to children who eat rocks or hurt themeselves)... This is "high praise" and "fluffy bunny talk"? Good grief, people. You want fire and brimstone and hate and talking points straight from International ANSWER, you're not going to get them ant a convention where we need to convince millions of people in SWING STATES that we are the responsible, grown-up choice to lead this nation. I notice that some of the prime complainers here are also (coincidentally enough) the folks who seem to abide no criticism, of any sort, of Ralph Nader-- even when he shills himself out at "tractor pulls" for laughing republicans to sign to get him on the ballot. Yet Obama calls Bush "sincere.. but" (emphasis on the "but"), and, hooo boy, look out, it's sell-out time at the DNC Corrall. Gimme a break.

[Sophree]

40. A person who uses this tactic

Has sharp political skills. It it MUCH more effective than outright rudeness or anger, especially with swing voters, as you said.

Not that we shouldn't be angry! We should. But above all, we have to be SMART.

Kerry is running a smart campaign so far. Anyone else notice the dig-not-a-dig at Bush's intelligence in Kerry's new campaign commercial? Something to the effect of, "To the defeat the terrorists, we have to be strong AND smart." Clue to American people- the Bush people are not bright enough to outfox Al-Qaeda.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Yeppers.

Beating them over the head with a hammer about what an evil, traitorous man Bush is is bound to backfire. How many people did the GOP alienate by their outright loathing of Clinton? Now, in this case, the loathing may be justified, but you're still talking about someone lots of these people voted for 4 years ago. I think selling them on his obvious incompetence, while leaving it to them whether or not that incompetence comes paired with malice, is the way to go-- at least when dealing with the national audience vis a vis the convention..

[WilliamPitt]

33. You're right. We're doomed. I'm voting Bush.

By the way, can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to make some bets at the track.

[JohnLocke]

35. Excellent!

;)

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

41. AP, you slammed a great candidate. His Democratic party screwed him.

We supported Jerald in his campaign last year. He is a great guy.

In his area, the Democrats are just totally dependent on Republicans for their nurture. His own DEC not only worked against him covertly, but they campaigned against him overtly for a guy who has only hurt Florida.

They owe a lot to the Republicans here, and they can not afford to cross them.

I think you owe him an apology soon.

On Edit, you slammed a fellow DUer who had the courage to run in a highly Republican district. I will check back to see if an apology is forthcoming. He was a Democratic candidate, and shame on you for that. I am surprised no one else is alarmed.

Jerald is quite well-spoken, and there was not one thing wrong with his post.

[madfloridian]

44. And anyone would love to have the great job he has in UAE.

Get him to tell you the benefits. He probably won't say the salary, but it is quite good. His benefits are so awesome he can save most of his salary.

I am shocked you would do this to him. I will check back later to see if anyone else stood up for him.

[AP]

56. If Obama is trying to get a job in the UAE, and can't because he hasn't

figured out how to do that, then I'll bitch out Obama when he criticizes the way people get jobs in the UAE.

OK?

Seriously, I'm on a hair trigger when it comes to people saying Dems aren't anti-war enough.

[madfloridian]

69. Well, then best not be around me.

I resent our soldiers dying daily in a war our Democrats embraced. They did not just vote for it, they were for it. I talked to their aides for hours before the war, and also on the day we started the shock and awe.

They did NOT sound like anti-war Dems at all then. If they are not for the war now, they need to be very vocal. Lives and money are at stake.

[AP]

91. How is complaining about Kerry going to end the war?

Do you really think Kerry wants soldiers to die like that?

[AP]

50. When he apologizes to Obama...

[madfloridian]

52. He did not insult Obama. You insulted Jerald, though.

He is very bright guy, masters' degree, and he was a good candidate. His own party stopped him. You owe him an apology.

I will kick this again in the morning to see, as I think insulting a guy who has the courage to run in Florida is just outrageous.

[AP]

55. I'm really sick of DU'ers who don't like Dems who do what they

need to do to win.

If JCM wasn't criticizing Obama in this post, then I'm sorry that I inferred that he did. However, I vaguely remember other posts by JCM criticizing the Dems for not being sufficiently anti-war. If I'm misremembering, I'm sorry.

But if I'm not, then I'm not so sorry.

[LoZoccolo]

58. Obama said the "good intentions" thing, so he did insult Obama.

I'm actually sick of people expecting that politicians will act the same way that people do when they're on message boards and think they have little accountability too. It's like, people, be your own person, get your own message out and quit relying on other people to spread it to people. Or as I said before, grow your own nuts and quit swinging from someone else's.

[madfloridian]

60. That is very endearing to people who care about the war.

I am my own person. My message is the war was just plain wrong. They are not saying what the future holds.

They have to earn my vote, it is not given so easily anymore. I have learned a lot about hatred of the anti-war Dems here. It has taught me a big lesson.

I want to know what Kerry plans for the future. So do others here where we live.

Stop insulting Jerald. You are making a lot of us mad. I know you want everyone to go away unless they agree with you....but it is not going to happen.

[AP]

64. I care about the war, but I also care about Dems winning in the fall so

there will be no more imperialist wars. And I think it's important that people separate good campaign strategies for November and good morals.

[madfloridian]

70. I disagree. One must run a moral campaign.

If one if for the mid east remapping, one should say so. So.,....if they are not for it...why not speak out?

[AP]

76. I'm for being sensible. In My Life, Clinton makes the point that he drew

the line at racism -- he could NEVER support a candidate who was a racist. However, Clinton spends a lot of time talking about how progressives in moderates' clothing won elections all over the south and then used their victories to try to bring an end to racism.

So, is war your race issue? Or is it the issue that Republicans are using as wedge issue so that Democrats can't get elected and make the real changes that would prevent the people Bush represents from getting their imperialist, wealth redistributing wars?

I think it's the latter.

[AP]

78. Furthermore, if the war is your litmus test and you're willing to see

Democrats lose over it, I think you're playing things exactly according to the Republican's plans.

[madfloridian]

81. That 's what everyone says. Accept it or else.

The war is going to affect every area of our lives. Where is the money coming from? It is not being allocated. Who is paying for it? Is it coming from our Social Security and Medicare, and other social programs?

It is a big, huge issue. Soldiers are dying and maimed daily.

[AP]

89. Two things:

(1) If you care about the war, don't run on only the war. You're sure to lose and the war will continue. This is what Clinton is trying to tell you in My Life when he talks about RFK, and it's what happened in '72.

(2) Do you REALLY think the war is the umbrella issue? Don't you think that something bigger is going on? There are things you could fix about america which would have stopped the war. But if you just stopped the Iraq war and nothing else, the Republicans would still have 95% of the things for which they exist.

[JohnKleeb]

93. I agree 100%

What makes me historically prefer RFK to Eugene McCarthy is that he campaigned on other stuff other than the war in Vietnam. There is something bigger than the war going on and yep even if the war was stopped, they would still control other things, theres a war at home and I believe Kerry-Edwards is fighting for the right side in this, this war is why many people are losing their jobs, why people are losing their homes, health care, etc, why some kids cant go to college because their parents can't afford it.

[AP]

95. The war is the smokescreen the Republicans use to do that other stuff

without people noticing -- or with the victims saying, "well, I guess I'm losing my job because of this war that evil-doers brought on us. Good bless the Republicans for trying to defend us."

Do all those people who think the war is the only issue, do they care about those other issues? Would they consider their mission accomplished if the US pulled out of Iraq?

[JohnKleeb]

96. as I said theres a war at home

The war is far from the only issue, the war is wrong but there are other just as important issues out there that Kerry and Edwards have been addressing and they have addressed of course the war.

[AP]

97. War is a part of the puzzle. The puzzle is the power transfer Republicans

are engaged in.

Kerry and Edwars are campaigning on the big picture, and not just any one piece.

As a result, Republicans are having an impossible time. They desperately want to cast them as the anti-national security candidates, and it isn't sticking. And they're desperately afraid that when people see the way they're putting the pieces together -- that when voters see the big picture of what the Republicans are doing -- the Repubicans are fucked. And that's what's happening.

[JohnKleeb]

98. I think they're doing a good job of handling them

and proposing good ideas for the future. I am really glad that Kerry incorporated a lot of Edwards' philosophy and chose him as a running mate because Edwards has a touch with some voters that no one else does and he addresses the problems well. I think they will make a great team.

[Kanary]

87. Actually, the war is the "litmus" test for the majority.

Remember people cheering in GD because of the reports of all the people taking fencesitters and RWers to F911, and watching them SEE for themselves the truth of the matter, and getting very angry at *, and angry about the war? Where in the hell do you think those people are going to go, when they get raging mad about being lied to about the war, turn their back on *, then find out that the DEMs are falling all over themselves, trying not to "offend" anyone by, gawd forbit, speaking up against the war?

Litmus test?

Look at the polls. The majority are against it.

I guess I'm just too out of it to see that as a campaign issue.

Kanary

[AP]

88. If you want to wage a campaign on being for or argainst the war,

Karl Rove is going have an orgasm.

1972.

Feelings about the war are the easiest to manipulate. If I were Karl Rove and you promissed me that you were going to talk only about the war for the next three months, I'd spot you 30 pts in the polls and I'd wager my house.

Bush is the Commander-in-Chief and has total control of the war.

They have total control of the media, and therefore, over people's perception of the war -- and this is so key to understanding why Rove wants to only talk about the war. People know their own lives. They look at their own bank statements every month. They know if their kids are losing their jobs. They know when they have their opportunities reduced. People don't know the war. Everything you know about the war is mediated. If you're lucky, it's hearsay from someoone you trust. But for 99.999% of Americans, it's mediated by a corporation which gives 90% of its PAC donations to Republicans.

Furthermore, if you argue only about war, you'd be arguing over something that is incredibly fertile ground for Republicans love. Most Americans already think the Republicans party is better than the Dems on the war.

Nothing makes people more inclined to give up what they deserve than when you talk about threats to national security.

I know you think you could win that battle based on what has happened so far. But you give me a week of cable and network news coverage and I could turn that around faster than you could blink.

[Kanary]

99. you've made it quite clear that NOTHING I have to say is

important to the party.

Count me out.

You win.

bye now.....

[AP]

101. No. I agree with the goal 100%. I just disagree with strategy to get it.

If you want Bush to have a second term and invade five more countries, then run this election on Kerry-Edwards not being anti-war enough.

[Kanary]

105. and your strategy is working soooo well.

Y'know, this "if you want Bush......." crap is so far over done...... do you really have any illusions left that anybody even hears this anymore? It was stooopid to begin with, when all of us are here because we hate the idiot, yet you treat us like repugs and expect us to lick your boots. Start off by getting a new line.

Here's how it is with "strategy"........

1. There is a deep divide in the DEM party..... it's a serious divide.

2. That divide is reflected here at DU

3. That divide was started by ignoring, then dissing segments of the party.

4. That ignoring and dissing is still going on.. in fact, its escalating.

a. bushwa did the same thing to the countries which wouldn't go along with his war plans.

b. his methods didn't bring any countries "into the fold"

c. his diplomacy has left the US isolated in the world

d. that isolation is NOT making the US stronger

etc etc etc

5. Doing the same thing to your fellow DEMs is *not* good strategy.

6. It's working about as well as bushwa's policies.

7. Maybe it's time to change direction -- try some diplomacy and see if maybe that works better.

8. The Party -- and the country -- would benefit from it.

[AP]

106. Uhm, it actually is working well. The candidates who best exempified the

winning strategy rose to the the top of the primaries and are now heading the ticket and leading in the polls and stand in good stead to win criticial swing states like OH, PA, and MI, and are doing well in FL, NV, NM, WI, NC and VA.

And 99.5% of DU'ers appreciate the strategy, and 99.9999999% of Democratic voters do too.

It's remarkable how few aren't on board,

[Kanary]

107. What I spent time delineating for you is solid conflict

resolution info.

I'm sure you can see the parallels with your treatment of fellow DEMs, and what * does.

You can choose to keep deepening the divide, and push us all away, or you can start taking a breath and recognizing you aren't getting your way by hitting us.

You choice.

Kanary

[AP]

108. Me defending Obama is hitting you? Right.

It was because of yesterday's Barak Obama shark frenzy that I responded to this thread.

Who's doing the hitting?

[Kanary]

109. Have fun with that division thing, fella......

[AP]

110. Talk to the purist dividers for whom Obama doesn't meet their litmust test

And let's make it clear: we're talking about Democrats running campaigns that can win so that they can change policy in the right direction.

We're talking about dividers who can't tell the difference between smart political strategy and smart legislative strategies.

[LoZoccolo]

72. This is why far-left voters don't get what they want.

Listen, Obama's position on the war probably closely matches yours, or probably does more than any other Senate candidate. What he will do as a Senator probably jibes with what you want done.

But see that's not enough for this high-maintanence contingent. They'll bust a spring over someone not accusing someone of something as much as they'd accuse someone of something. This is why the far-left vote is not worth courting - you just don't know what kind of little thing is gonna cause a mutiny - and in this case it's not even a policy matter! For McGovern it was the whole Eagleton thing. I remember someone on here - who was later tombstoned so it might have all been trolling - complaining about Kerry shedding a tear or something over Reagan dying. When it was pointed out that Kucinich also gave a congenial and polite speech, this same guy was like "well yeah but he didn't cry". This sort of delicateness is not something you want in the people you are relying on to vote for you.

If it's a matter of not fighting the Republicans enough, well, let's look at how the Republicans fight. They have a bunch of surrogates like talk-show hosts and one congressman from a safe district do the bulk of their negative attacks! They don't have Bush* running around directly calling specific named people liars.

[Kanary]

75. I appreciate you letting me know my vote isn't worth it. I guess that now

excuses me, so I can now say....... what, I won't vote? Vote for a 3rd party?

Since there are also a lot of people like me, I guess you can mentally change those poll numbers...... you know, the ones you've been counting on.

Of course, you'll have some very congenial flip-off response....

Kanary

[LoZoccolo]

82. It's up to you to make your vote worth it.

Someone here once brought up that pro-choice gets such good support from the Democratic party because they're a reliable voting bloc. And I don't think we got to the point where same-sex unions are a major issue by the gay and lesbian vote threatening to secede. But it's just simple logic that a politician isn't going to court a voting bloc that'll mutiny over some small thing (maybe even something that you don't even predict they'll mutiny over), and in this case, something - and I can't stress this enough - that won't even affect policy! He's being strung up simply for not going far enough in his accusations! What does that have to do with what he'll do as Senator??!!

[madfloridian]

85. It is up to the candidate to earn our votes.

.

[AP]

92. Kerry has earned mine by proving that he's so serious about winning...

...that he's going after the gold mine of votes in the middle of the spectrum.

[Kanary]

86. What did *any* of the issues of Dems not standing up to repugs

have to do with what they do as Sen., or Reps, or Pres?

For years now, DU has been a mass of complaints of DEms not responding, not having a spine. Somehow that was sanctioned when it was convenient.

Now, it's not sanctioned. But, that doesn't mean that some people don't still feel that way, and that it's important to them.

You've made it clear that any "block" is easily dismissed. I thought the framers of the constitution went out of their way to build in protections for *any* minority group. And, I thought that these lawmakers took an oath to uphold that constituion. But, I guess that's no longer "politically expedient".

:shrug:

Then we wonder why so many people don't bother with voting. They KNOW this attitude.

Kanary

[madfloridian]

59. Well, hell, I do that all the time. Does that mean I can't run for office

I consider that a half apology. I have a soft spot for Jerald and Crystal, as they are good intelligent people. He is in a part of the world where he sees what they think of our little escapade in Iraq.

Kerry and Edwards have to stand up and make clear what their goals are. No more games. Will Marshall is pulling him to go on with the remapping, so will he do it or will he not. Only Kerry knows.

[AP]

62. I've criticized non-candidates for saying that here, and if you were

a candidate, I'd put it in the context of bad campaign instincts and strategy (depending on the district you were running in -- if you were in a moderate district I'd definitely criticize it).

[madfloridian]

63. And you have what authority to do that?

You seem to be quite judgemental.

[AP]

66. Look around. Being judgmental is 99% of the essence of DU. If you don't

want to deal with people being judgmental, don't come to DU.

[JohnKleeb]

61. if people had criticized Obama rationally I might not had been so upset

but I saw him compared to Zell Miller, and this man even said he would have voted against the resolution and that the war was idealogically driven. Goes what Ive been telling people that tone and persona are everything to some.

[madfloridian]

65. Jerald did not do that.

Jerald deserves an apology.

[JohnKleeb]

67. but people were doing it all day

thats my point, and thats why I think people have handled the obama affair wrong.

[madfloridian]

73. Jerald didn't, and I didn't.

However, where Jerald is in Dubai, he sees the worldview of our country. It is not a pleasant one. The world is watching this election. If Kerry is not for continuing this remapping policy he should say so. The world is waiting. They are very afraid of us.

[Norquist Nemesis]

42. Get real and come down to earth

If you think a Bush-bashing hatefest full of screamers is going to pull the undecideds and independents over to the Dems you're wrong. This is not the time to hit back in high gear if we are to win this election. The base is energized and some will be disappointed that it's not going to be a slam at all things Bush. But the base is not who we need to bring this thing to a win.

Obama is an excellent choice to carry the message of why the Democrats (and specifically, Kerry) is the choice Americans should make in November.

[madfloridian]

43. You do not need the base, is that what you are saying?

I did not hear Obama, but I do know he is the up and coming star of the party. I have been impressed with him, and we donated to him as a Dean Dozen. He is fine with me, as I know the convention is soft-pedaling things for the week. Dean's speech is even being written for him by Kerry staffers.

However to come right out and say you do not need the base is outrageous.

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. Not at all!

I'm saying the base is firm. The base will be voting for Kerry.

We need to convince that small percentage of undecideds and moderates. A bashing of Bush would please all of us, but it would turn off those who are looking into Kerry and the Dems during the convention. Pandering to satisfy the base during the convention won't pull them toward us and help defeat Bush.

Bash him after the convention. :)

[madfloridian]

49. That is how we did it in 2000 and 2002.

Look where it got us.

[Elbowroom]

45. what the fuck?

"inaction is a weapon of mass destruction"?



this is a fucking song lyric! I love the song, but is this the best we got?

[JohnKleeb]

46. a DLC love fest?

yes thats why I see only two-three DLC members who are speaking at the convention.

[madfloridian]

47. Kicking this for Jerald.

I want him to get his apology.
:kick:

He was a great candidate and does not deserve to be hurt. His own party had a lot to do because the DEC supported the Republican for their own best interests.

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

51. He also started a stupid thread.

I don't know anything about it, but he probably lost for some of the same reasons that we think this thread is stupid.

[madfloridian]

53. It was a true thread, not stupid.

It is going to be a week of fluffy bunny love, and they have as much as said so.

When we start insulting candidates on here, that is pretty bad. Jerald was not insulting in this post.

[LoZoccolo]

54. I think it's a valid thing to bring up.

Someone that lost telling someone else what to do is fair game, I think.

Big deal what he said this morning. A politician tends to be more cautious in his accusations, having a great deal of influence and exposure, than a bunch of flailers on a message board. If someone brings that flailer mentality to a political campaign, well, see what happens.

[madfloridian]

57. He is not a politician now. He was brought down by his DEC.

Because they were beholden to the Republicans. Let's see, he has no right to post that there will be a loving type convention? I think he does.

No,he is not fair game. The more hateful this board becomes, the more people are deciding that staying home or 3rd party looks good.

We have some Democratic friends voting for Nader because the local party here does not stand for anything. Being ugly is not beneficial to anyone.

I know some enjoy it, but it just drives folks away. Yeh, I know you don't need them anyway.

[clyrc]

100. Thank You , madfloridian

As you probably well know, we have tried to refrain from writing too much about the absolute betrayal we felt over the 2002 elections, but of course it colors our thinking now. For me, at least, this election brings up very complex feelings. I am voting for Kerry, but I have concerns about the Democratic Party.

[madfloridian]

103. You are most welcome, Crystal.

I have never forgotten it either. You guys have been super about keeping your mouths shut. It has happened here in our area lately as well. The head of the DEC refused to sign a petition card for a fellow Democrat willing to take on Adam Putnam.

No one here will ever pretend to understand. It is sad. It is a complicated thing to have to deal with. You guys were great Democrats, just as we were. We saw the power side, and it was not pretty.

Yes, we will vote for Kerry, but our heart is not with the whole thing. We are working mostly with DFA and the Dean Dozen. We will continue to do so.

To those of us who remember DU as it was before the war, it hurts to come here some days. It is as though all is fine now. Forget that old war, just ignore it. Our candidate should at least have the guts to say if he is for continued America empire.

I was hoping you guys would not mind, but I had to say it.

[JCMach1]

111. Looks like people get a little short-tempered around elections

Just a couple of points

1. I love Obama
2. It seemed to me he was getting a raw deal from a few people here the other day.
3. I was just trying to exlain WHY Obama might say what he did, the way that he did.
4. Scripting is scripting whether it's Repugs or Democrats...

HOWEVER, Kerry MUST show some passion at this convention. He also needs to mobilize the disillusionment and anger over Bush to get some of the 50million or so 'non-voters' to the polls. That's how we'll win this Fall!


PS Thanks Madfloridian for explaining in my absence... I am still more or less on vacation so my DU time is relatively short these days.

[madfloridian]

112. Heck, no problem. Obama is a Dean Dozen, and we donated to him.

I think he is great, but I will always reserve the right to question. I think we should not be afraid to call Bush out on the lies. But then it is not my campaign.

You are diplomatic, Jerald. This loudmouth here (me) could not take criticism of two good people who were hurt by their own party....because their own party was too tied to the GOP.