May I make an observation, re: the "burn Obama at the stake thread"?

[CatWoman]

How can any of you equate Obama with Zell Miller?

Why do you want to launch a campaign against him, and not Zell?

I think if any scorn or ridicule should be launched, it should be against Zell Miller, not Obama.

I don't see Obama campaigning for Bush.

If anything, the Whoopie incident magnified the need for Dems to watch what they say.

We may not like it, but it's a matter of fact.

[salin]

1. you write this much more to the point than I could.

Tried a couple of places to point out the comparisons to Miller (or even Lieberman and Bayh) were both hyperbolic, and not able to be backed up - there is simply not the track record of concrete specific actions that abet bushco.

Express frustration with his response - I get it.

Turning him into Zell Miller - well that is so ludicrous that when I think about it ... it is spitting coffee on the monitor funny...

[Kanary]

70. Hi salin

:hi:

I didn't get to reply to your reply to me in the other thread...... I love being locked in mid-sentence. :)

You were saying to me that you were disappointed in the absence of reasoned discourse. I will concur.

While you and I are feeling different emotions about this current issue, I will say that I completely agree with you on the larger disapointment. I felt that very keenly since first joining DU.

However, if I said anything about it, I was promptly, and none too pleasantly, I might add, told, no, make that ordered, to GROW A SKIN.

I find that sentiment particularly offensive, but that makes no difference on DU. One either adapts here, or leaves, or is silenced.

I have, much to my own chagrin, adapted, and am speaking to people in ways that I never have before. That's the result. Different people will have different responses to the same provocation. And that's OK, too.

If *I* had my druthers, I'd much prefer that there was reasoned discussion here on DU........ I'd much prefer, and what I had expected to see, is people working to understand each other, to work to make all the differences a PRO rather than a CON, and work to find ways to make progress on the ISSUES. But, that isn't the nature of DU. :( The nature here is to call names, dismiss people, the cruder ways that is done the better, and congratulate each other on "besting" those with a different opinion. Add to that a pride in NOT empathizing with those in pain, and you have what we have here..... shouting each other down, and using hyperbole and whatever else is at our command to WIN.

And, WINNING is what it's all about.... not understanding, and not building a stronger society of caring people.

WINNING.

And I have no doubt that some WINNING person will take great delight in TRIUMPHing over this post.

so, here is my own take, and my own effort at replying to you.....

Kanary, hopeless about the whole mess....
who asks you to please read and maybe even reread her sig line....

[salin]

126. I hear you

and have watched this dynamic grow (always has been here since I showed up - but not quite so prevalent as it has been since the primaries). Periodically some discourse can happen - but it takes work. The nice thing - is that a few places on this very thread there are little mini evidences of discourse - so it can happen... but we allow ourselves to get sucked into cycles of dividing along some line in the sand ... and its sorts wierd... one side or the other (often alternating as we tend to get "rabbit threads" where a gazillion spin off threads will grow when we get into this cycle) will get a bit hyperbolic - and two discussions will follow -

1) the echo chamber around the hyperbolic statement (in this example - I don't think the criticism of Obama was the lightening rod as much as the then leaping to the comparison of Obamma to Zell Miller)

2) a tit for tat response around a dividing line that gets drawn that goes into the "you are crazy" (with other obligatory statements like the ones to which you refer... "Grow a skin... politics is a contact sport, etc.")... which gets flowing a defensive... no YOU are crazy (or you are a sell out, etc. etc.)

Lost is the discussions about our collective frustration levels that lead to the hyperbolic statements in the first place... or any other discourse around the issue.

Then five more response threads will start... from both directions... following the same unproductive pattern.

Then everynow and again salin will pipe up and try to help us get back to discourse... followed (if I stay at it long enough) with inevitable calls of salin being a jackbooted netnanny (hasn't happened today - but just reflecting how well I know this sad dynamic - by projecting the next phase that would suck me in...) ;-)

Thanks for responding Kanary - I recognize and empathize with your frustration. Sadly, as you suggest, the dynamics themselves really have a poisonous effect not just on the nature of the discourse on various topics... but also on we who participate - as we get conditioned to participate in a way that is at least functional during the dysfunctional dynamics when the rev up and kick in. *sigh*

Wish I could figure out other ways to try to squeeze discoursive lemonade out of threads that get sucked into the crazy tit for tat mentality... Am open to ideas.

[Maeve]

128. If it will make you feel any better

"Salin is a jackbooted netnanny!" :P

There, someone has said it and you don't have to wait for that shoe to drop.<just clowning--we need some lightening up around here and I'm in a peroxide mood...>

Passions are high in America and triggers are hair...so small issues are jumped on as portents of more terrible matters and it becomes difficult to back down once positions are taken. Some lying-assed politician promised to change the tenor of civic conversation, but we didn't expect the rancor we got.

[salin]

129. bwahahaha

thanks Maeve...

Very good assessment of the underlying roots of this funky dynamic that often kicks up here at DU.

[Kanary]

131. the spiral

I guess I better get this reply off to you before I'm in the middle of another locking. :)

I fully understand your description of the spiral, and agree completely.

I will submit, however, that isn't where it begins. I would suggest that, while there are people who lurk and enjoy lurking, most people who post here do so because they want to interact with others...... not just because they enjoy typing. There is a dynamic that most posts don't get a response, so people get into trying for the unusual and dramatic in order to get attention, and a response. The higher the level of emotion, the more "unusual" the posts can become, just in order to participate.

The other dynamic is that the atmosphere got set here that this isn't a place for *listening* and *understanding*...... it is the place for a "debate" that culminates in a "win". So, people talk past each other, and it escalates to shouting, and combined wiht the point above, you have the start of your spiral.

I don't know what it would take to get the idea across that we're all in this together, but........ I don't see that happening.

It's Rugged Individualism to the MAX.

Some good old-fashioned communication skills classes would be nice. :hi:

Kanary

[salin]

133. kudos - great descriptions

both the unusual post to get a response (I don't tend to give it much thought - but you are right - sometimes well intended, sometimes not - either way can get the fires burning and the cycle stoked) and the adversarial debate tone rather than discursive tone.

Hadn't really given it much thought - just have cringed forever at the resulting dynamic. Will have to keep it in mind - the next time I watch one of these things start to spin out... gives me an idea of how to approach it and at least attempt to get some dialogue going buried within the dynamic. Thanks for the insight!

And yes - those courses would be nice... anyone who could design/lead a few of those for numerous web communities - might find a little market niche...

:hi:

[Kanary]

135. You're not personally responsible, salin, for being The Great Untangler

:hi:

However, it would be good to have a roving group of Detanglers. (Gawddess alive, does that sound like the Great Unsticker?)

~~gigglesnort~~

I think I need choklit. :hi:

"Peace" isn't the most popular cause, y'know...... kinda the province of silly, insane, agent provocateurs. :)

As a matter of fact, I've actually thought for quite a while about some sort of online communications thing. There are some stumbling blocks..... for instance, part of "Active Listening" is non-verbal. A bit hard to do with a keyboard. (Unless you throw it..... ~~chortle~~) At any rate, it's certainly badly needed.

Kanary, off to find a comb for some detangling...... :)

[ulysses]

2. while I'm not interested in burning Obama at the stake,

I'm not into furthering the meme that Democrats need to watch what we say either.

But you knew that. :hi:

[CatWoman]

4. hahahahahaha

got an extra pitchfork?

we can simulate the Bride of Frankenstein chase scene :hi:

[ulysses]

6. LOL - will a hoe do?

:D

[salin]

5. agreed

and thankfully things are rarely either or (except on DU).

[ulysses]

7. hey, salin!

:hi:

[salin]

8. hi uly!

:hi: :hug:

[ClassWarrior]

36. But that's the point.

We don't need to watch what we say. Just how and when we say it.

I say paste a big ol' smile across your face and let it rip...

[ulysses]

50. eh - I'm not sure

that how and when offer such a big difference from what. We can keep playing games and going along with current public opinion, but the GOP works to *change* public opinion, and until we do too, things won't truly shift for the better.

[ClassWarrior]

109. I still think we agree.

You can't change public opinion with a club. That's what the right has learned. You need to finesse public opinion. That means game-playing to a degree. In other words choosing your words and your timing carefully.

[chimpymustgo]

3. Thank you Catwoman! The "burn Obama" madness is stunning.

I truly thought it was a joke at first.

We have got to get a grip.

[diplomats]

21. I agree

I just logged onto DU, and when I saw the Obama flap, my response, after reading what he said IN CONTEXT was :wtf: about the overreaction.

[Doomsayer13]

9. Some people are just insane

The DU delusion meter has hit an all-time high with this debacle. The guy refuses to call Bush a baby killer and a lair and he's being cruxified as the next Zell Miller, even though he'll be the most progressive voice in the senate next to Ted Kennedy and Russ Fiengold if he's elected.

Newsflash to these people - he's running for the SENATE, not the state house. He has to represent people who - this may be hard to believe for some of you out there - don't think Bush is a complete scumbag baby eating puppy killing monster but instead think that he's kinda a fuck up. Illinois is a diverse state both racially and ideologically... maybe you all haven't ever been there, but I know becuase I've lived there for a majority of my life. God forbid he try to reach out beyond what he already has... god forbid he try to represent Illinois.

Give me a break.

[maggrwaggr]

53. Yup. That's me. Insane.

I'm insane because I"m tired of my so-called leaders sucking on the corporate/GOP cock?

I'm tired of being lied to?

I'm tired of seeing our side, who has been declared an enemy and traitors and liars and every other horrible hate-filled name you can think of by our opponents, TRY TO BE NICE TO PEOPLE WHOSE DESIRE IT IS TO DESTROY US.

Perhaps we should change the name to the "Chamberlain" party.

You cannot deal with evil people. You can only contain them.

Our current leadership in the country is evil, they are criminal, and they cannot be negotiated with. They need to be put in jail.

It's time SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE started trying to educate the people about this rather than walking on eggshells thinking "gosh, I sure wouldn't want to piss anybody off"

That's me. Insane.

BWA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!!!!

[Doomsayer13]

78. yes, being pissed works just fine

when you're at home screaming at a computer screen. Lets try and see whether it wins us any elections.

[Zhade]

89. Damn straight.

Now, I'm going to have to say that Obama's other ideas (from what I know so far) have seemed very intelligent and very needed in this country.

That said, he is flat-out wrong to say that b*sh et al are sincere in making America safer. It is clear they are NOT.

Why? Because a less safe world and America means more power and control for them. They love power and control, like all fascists do.

Obama's probably playing nice to not look like a "nutjob" to the ignorant masses out there. Well, here's a hint, O - YOU HAVE NO OPPONENT! What can you lose by stating the full truth?

It won't be the election, that's for sure.

[Doomsayer13]

95. That wasn't the point

Read it again. Obama's point was that just becuase Bush is sincere in making America safer doesn't mean it's actually working. Obama proceeded to rip apart the unilateralist doctorine in the interview. The point was that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it's time we change course. Remember, he's speaking at the DNC, he'll be representing the Democratic party on the national stage... we need a message that will unite America instead of divide it. I think his tone and his delivery are right on the money.

[Zhade]

102. Obama's "point" that "b*sh is sincere in making America safer" is WRONG.

THAT'S the problem.

They are anything BUT sincere in that stated goal. Their actions (say, invading and occupying another country based on lies) tend to prove my point.

We are NOT safer, and b*shco could care fuck-all about our safety. Conceding this false premise to them was a mistake on Obama's part.

[thinkingwoman]

127. his reply was great strategy

by saying he believes bush is sincere he takes away a large part of the emotional argument the right keeps pitching (much like caged monkeys pitch their shit) whenever a Dem says they disagree with the war or bush's reason for the war.

My husband and I watched the Obama interview and we both felt he did an excellent job of dismantling the straw men that russert set up and staying on message.

[Kanary]

118. Just one question for you........

The ones you are worried about is the independents and fencesitters, right?

With as horrific as the situation in this country as become, do you really believe that anyone who is undecided at this point is thinking very deeply?

Kanary

[Kanary]

138. Since there was no answer to the question.....

Just to consider....

When you have to think it through carefully, and parse all the words, and work it all around in your head, you have to realize that the bulk of the listeners to that program simply aren't going to jump through all those hoops.

You mock those of us who had a quick gut reaction, but if you really think that less informed people were thinking it all through carefully for all the nuance they could pull out of it, then you might want to look again at the great pool of voters called "independents".

Kanary

[Susang]

10. Agreed

But you knew that already, didn't you? ;-)

[CatWoman]

12. ah, Susang

my partner in crime :hi:

[Susang]

25. Looks like you weren't the only one barbecuing this afternoon!

I like what you're cooking a lot better! :-)

[qanda]

11. It's a complete overreaction

And I wonder if it's because he's black. Everyone expects him to come out sounding like Al Sharpton. I read the transcript and I am still trying to figure out why people here have their panties in a wad. :shrug: What did you want him to say? You people need to get a grip!

[salin]

20. I might be tempted to think that

and in some cases that might be true... (DU is definitely not free of commentary that demonstrates racial/ethnic (or gender) bias...) but per today's eruption...

my take: the evidence of many over reactions to different dems when they don't march quite to the desired tune... suggests that he is actually getting equal treatment on this front. More my commentary on the tend towards hyperbolic that grows on DU. This said by a strong anti-war person - who often agrees with those using todays hyperbole.... imo, just sort of the funky group dynamics that sometimes kicks in at DU.

[qanda]

24. But this whole thing strikes me as insane

John Kerry voted for this stupid war and Obama says he wouldn't have voted for it and yet he's the bad guy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. I have posted that 10 times...

Kerry and Edwards voted for the IWR and NO ONE gives a rats ass that OBAMA SAID HE WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR IT! Go figure. It's roast Obama day on DU. It's truly sickening.

[salin]

32. imo

its very insane... but not necessarily MORE insane that what we witnessed during some of the (primary) candidate wars...

You know the dynamic is into a cyclic rut when it follows only two themes - and any discourse that introduces anything else is ignored (I raised the exact IWR point in a post, btw... largely ignored). In this case the themes:
a) abandon Obama!
b) you all are crazy vs no, you all are crazy.

No other points (such as alternative views of the interview...) will be entertained. When the dynamics on a topic hit that point - we are in a DU induced frenetic dynamic that for the world of me I can not explain, nor make any suggestions of how to deescalate it (the cycle) whenever it gets invoked.

[Zhade]

92. No no no!

Didn't you get the DLC memo? Kedwards did NOT vote for war, so Obama clearly couldn't have voted against the war had he voted against the IWR!

</transparent rationalization>

Seriously, though - it's overkill, but Obama really could say everything that needs to be said. After all, he's currently running unopposed, isn't he? (Or am I wrong on that?)

[dennis4868]

125. The media is...

fooling you...Kery did not vote for the war...he voted giving Bush authorization to use the armed forces as a last resort if nothing else worked....

[maggrwaggr]

56. Yes, I overreacted

This new "star" of the Democratic party, the guy who is going to give the keynote address at the National Convention gets on the air and says Chamberlain-esque things about the criminal rulers in power, rulers who would like nothing more than to kill Democracy in this country (postponing elections don't forget) and completely control or supposedly free press (more than they do now), and you're saying I fucking OVERREACTED?

Gosh, yes, I'll go take my double dose of Paxil now and watch "Survivor" re-runs, thank you very much.

Sure wouldn't want to piss on the Dem's parade.

[salin]

65. The thing about when we get into recursive loop group mentality on DU

is that we stop DISCUSSING things and go to corners and yell at one another - which is what happened on that thread.

When alternative reads per the same situation were offered - they were virtually ignored. No discussion. You did respond to one point I raised, and when I responded... didn't come back to respond again. I reread the thread - the only places where people spoke were to call each other names - as if there were lines in the sand drawn and folks viewing things differently were assigned to one side or the other and then given loaded water baloons and paintballs. If any folks from either side tried to have a discussion - they were isolated.

THAT is when I think we get into crazy group dynamics.

And yes, pitching Obama based on this as a traiter like Zell Miller - does seem to be hyperbolic. Criticizing him - seems fair game. Aligning him to Miller, based on one comment but in absense of any legislative actions or other validating comments to MILLER ... this level of hyperbole is often what gets our crazy dynamics envoked on DU. Personally I don't find the dynamic terribly productive, nor edifying. But I have come to expect them as par for the course. What is crazy isn't so much the initial thoughts... it is the group dynamics that ensues that I have tried (perhaps ineffectively) to describe.

[maggrwaggr]

72. Okay, yes, I was hyperbolic. I use hyperbole often.

I was also angry and extremely disappointed.

I am sick and tired of this leadership vacuum in the Dem party.

I am not happy Kerry voted for IWR. I am not happy Edwards voted for IWR.

I am sick and tired of ANYONE who wants to play "nice" with the GOP.

The GOP has made it clear they consider us their enemies and they wish to destroy us. THIS is not hyperbole.

We have had war declared on us and a LOT of people want to play nice.

Personally I find the reaction to my reaction to be an overreaction.

I've now been called Karl Rove's wet dream, a deliberate GOP disruptor, insane, and many other things.

All for standing up for what I thought a LOT of people here on DU stood for.

[Pastiche423]

80. "All for standing up for what I thought

"a LOT of people here on DU stood for."

A lot of people here on DU can't stand for many things. Otherwise, they wouldn't "win".

"Winning" is EVERYTHING, doncha know?

You may win crap, but you WON!

[Zhade]

98. I've actually read posts like that.

Posts which say "Position X doesn't matter if we want to win."

"Winning is all that's important."

"We have to win, so I will not criticize Kerry."

Willful suspension of dissent never fixes the problems that such dissent attempts to address.

I understand that people are desperate to get rid of b*sh. Hell, I believe he should be hung for his crimes. I want him out of office so bad I can taste it.

But I'll be damned if Kerry gets a pass just because the DLC and its corporate masters foisted him on us. If he governs from the center-right, and if he actually sticks to the right-wing positions (Israel, Iraq, Venezuela, and on and on) he's taking "just to win", I'll be just as active against him as I am against b*sh.

He's got a chance to prove he can do the right thing, if he gets into office. If he blows it, I owe him nothing but dissent and criticism.

[salin]

87. Fair enough

and I agree and share your frustration on almost every point. Going down the list:

I was also angry and extremely disappointed.

I didn't hear the comments - so while I read them and chewed on it (not happily) - I could see it from another vantage point, and the fact that he stated that based on the info he had at the time he would have voted AGAINST the IWR... gave me comfort that this was more of a bad word choice as he was trying to carefully respond than an indication that he was going mamby pamby (or he would have given an answer per the vote question that would have given more cover to Kerry and Edwards).

I am sick and tired of this leadership vacuum in the Dem party.


I agree. However there are times when Pelosi shows flashes of hardball savvy that isn't just sell out. I think that given control of the house - she could do very well and more in the mold of past great leaders such as Tip ONiell and even Jim Wright. She, though not perfect and at times nowhere near great, is a far improvement over Gephardt who was very ineffective.


I am not happy Kerry voted for IWR. I am not happy Edwards voted for IWR.

I was very unhappy with both of these votes. However I view them differently in the sense that Kerry's rhetoric at the time (that he would hold the WH accountable if they didn't follow through) was consistent with the onset of the war (he was NOT quietly accepting or suddenly going yea rah for the war effort... ) While I thought that his vote in the first place compromised his ability to fully criticize later (which I still think) - at least he was consistent. Edwards, however, on the eve of the war was yea rah war. He did state that he would have worked more on diplomatic efforts for longer than bush had - but other than that caveat was supportive right through the buildup, start and ongoing battles of the war. Thus I was always MORE disappointed/frustrated in Edwards votes, actions and rhetorics than with Kerrys.


I am sick and tired of ANYONE who wants to play "nice" with the GOP.

Me, too. However sometimes thinking of how we frame things isn't so much about wanting to appear "nice" - sometimes it is about how best to market opposing ideas in a way that will sell more voters (and hopefully in a way that is SO permanent that it results in wholesale rejection of the IDEOLOGY behind the republicans so that they don't creep back into power within a year or two or five or ten.) Sometimes there needs to be room for distinction between the discussions stating the need to play nice or keep on the high road (I am not in that camp) vs strategy and policy framing discussions. They are different discussions. THough I can see how one could be mistaken for the other in the context of today's discussion.


The GOP has made it clear they consider us their enemies and they wish to destroy us. THIS is not hyperbole.
I AGREE and it scares the hell out of me. THis concern is NOT hyperbolic. Hell there was an unrelated thread about a hummer trying to run a prius off the road... the prius had no political bumper stickers, there had been no provocative moment that started the "roadaltercation"... just simply being in a car that is somehow assumed to be a symbol of the left? Or perhaps just random chance of running into a crazy driver. Thing is - the divisions and push for REAL hatred among fellow americans - is REAL and thus the idea that perhaps the crazy hummer driver was looking to harm due to political presumptions isn't such an unbelievable scenario.

We have had war declared on us and a LOT of people want to play nice.

I hear you. Personally, I think that the reactions to your posts for many come from the same fear/anger/rage spot as yours - just with different views of how to fight back in this war. That is why when we stop discussing we get to a point where we become ineffective because we waste all this energy. I would prefer to see more energy on strategy - I think calling folks to write to Obama per ones disappointment - good point - keep those left leaning candidates and office holders responsive to us on the left. That is part of the problem in the rise of the "new democrats" - was that a sense grew that there didn't need to be responsiveness - and to some extent many of us played into that dynamic as we only were active and loud during election times. I also think that figuring out how to get more of the public to "SEE" the realities behind this administration - is needed. Simply decrying it works to a point (heck with all the media leaning on the right and the money advantage per bush... it is stunning that Kerry has a slight lead - part of that is due to those who have and can see the realities behind the admin. But there are a lot of folks in frickin blinded comfortzone space who really can not accept nor see the realities behind this admin because it would blow up their mental picture of the US, of the Republicans, of the virtues or our system and the good that we do (the stuff we are fed through grade/highschool.) Thus they keep eating the lame spin from the right, because it is simpler and safer to do than working through the cognitive disonance that is required of seeing the Bushadmin for what it is and comparing it to the idealized view of America. More discussion on different ways of penetrating that BIG CHUNK of the american public psyche - the better. IMO that is how we get rid of the current crop of GOP and make them so reviled that they don't crawl back in.


Personally I find the reaction to my reaction to be an overreaction.

Perhaps, or perhaps it is the typical cyclic dynamic to which I refered earlier. Whenever we get into these cycles - the reactions to the two sides gets more and more overreactive.


I've now been called Karl Rove's wet dream, a deliberate GOP disruptor, insane, and many other things. Again - this is very typical of DU group behavior when we get into these crazy dynamic cycles.


All for standing up for what I thought a LOT of people here on DU stood for. Or for getting caught into (and helping fuel) one of our reactive cycles where we don't see anything but our own view - phrase it hyperbolically and suck everyone else into two camps to start yelling at one another over what ever dividing line was created. What I am saying is that the underlying frustration you expressed is shared on many levels by many of us. However we react differently. And sometimes fall into a space that disallows any conversation and gets crazier and crazier. The candidate wars during the primaries come to mind. Got to a point where I wouldn't even go into some forums because the dynamics were so fucked up. Often fucked up by folks with whom I agree on many points most of the time... but who could get sucked into the ugly warring factional dynamics and become quite ugly to others. And the damn cycle just amplified itself to where folks felt COMPELLED to continue and get uglier because someone else had said x or y about candidateQ's supporters and they COULDN'T let it slide... and the response would be so insulting that it had to be responded to, etc etc until there was virtually NO content in any of the threads (though participants, even today I bet, would be loathe to admit that... but one biased source used for the 80th time is NOT full of any content...).

Hang in there... We will move through this particular flare up. Just resist the urge to read all those who disagree with you when you get caught in an emotional moment (which we ALL have given the high stakes behind these elections) as writing the opposite of your view (in this case that disagreeing with you was being written from a "play nice" perspective... which in MY case NOT what I was saying). Resist that urge - and you will be more able to keep responding point by point to folks - pushing all's views/ideas further; let other folks get pulled into that vortex of screaming at each other and eventually saying nothing because it has gotten so silly (as your last point indicates.)

[maggrwaggr]

96. Now THAT'S a diplomatic post

:)

Thanks, Salin. And by the way you must type as fast as I do, or faster.

Yes, perhaps the use of hyperbole is unnecesary on DU.

I would like to see all of use our anger constructively, and that is why I get so frustrated what what seems to me to be a wimpy attitude.

To modify an old saying: "expecting the GOP to be nice to you because you're nice to them is like expecting the tiger to not eat you because you're a vegetarian."

[salin]

104. I think hyperbole has its place

just beware when a funky dynamic spins out of it from time to time... then see if you can't work to make the dynamic discoursive rather than reactive/camps. Very hard to do - but possible (found myself creating one of these things long ago... then worked to respond on point to each post that came up, rather than getting reactive/defensive. Took some work but turned into a really interesting discussion.)

Thanks for the kudos per the diplomacy - I do not always succeed in that arena - but when I can see where the points of disconnect are - esp among like minded folks... if I have the time I really do feel the need to try to get to the clarification that moves past the crazy dynamic.

Thanks for being willing to move out of defense and into discourse with me on this thread. Peace. :D

Btw - great quote/analogy!

[Zhade]

106. Nice post - but see post #102 for my feelings on why Obama is wrong.

He conceded a false premise to the GOP - that b*shco are sincere in trying to make America safer.

This is demonstrably false. While I don't equate Obama with Zell Miller for this mistake, let's be clear that this WAS a mistake. He gave the GOP a point that they didn't earn, and one that is patently false.

That is not helpful. I won't burn him at the stake for it, but I won't applaud him for dropping the ball on this one, either.

EDIT: spelling.

[salin]

112. Point well made

I tend to fall in the - sounds like there was an attempt to get him in a specific corner (I DO suspect a rovian strategy/setup)... and that he was working to parlay in a way not to get pushed into that corner. His word choice could have been better (somewhere SoCalDem gives alternative wording that I think works better) - I think outright calling bush a liar would have been problematic with very little gain/upside. But this wording - as you and magg. point out - can be used for a small upside per team bush.

[never cry wolf]

115. Please stop saying that

He DID NOT say shrub was sincere in making america SAFER!

Read the transcript, his words were: I think that George Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but I think there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position.

Nowhere did he intimate this made america safer. In fact, by adding that his single mindedness has led the country into a very difficult position actually infers the opposite.

I want to see lil georgie in the Hague as much as the next guy, but I too, believe he is sincere about maintaing a strong america! How else can he loot the world?

[Zhade]

119. You're right, mea culpa.

I based my point on a misreading of Obama's words.

I do think he's wrong that b*sh even wants a strong America, but this is clearly not the argument I was making. So, I retract my statement. Obama did not concede the false premise that b*shco is sincere in making America safer.

Guess I'll have to read more carefully in the future. I'm actually glad you set me straight on this, it makes Obama more appealing.

[never cry wolf]

120. You may have a point about a strong america

bunnypants just wants a strong american military and profitable corporate bottom lines, he could give a shit about the rest of us.

It takes a big person to admit an error, which also points out how small the "man" squatting in the WH actually is.

[joanski01]

13. Thanks, CatWoman.

I am not usually taken aback by some of the things I read on DU, but the Obama attack really shocked me. I totally didn't expect that, because I had just gotten an excellent impression of him. It's quite upsetting.

[nostamj]

14. a truly ugly thread

it can't be locked soon enough...

ah, the DUnity!

p.s. check out my gorgeous cast. they ALL openly HATE * so it's safe!

[Bat Boy]

15. How dare you!

Reason is not allowed here! This is General Discussion!

Take your well thought out, rational responses to the Lounge, where they belong....

[CatWoman]

17. LOLOLOL

:hi:

[Walt Starr]

16. By refusing to call Bush the liar he is

Barack Obama made a liar out of himself.

I'll still vote for the guy, this year, but am VERY DISAPPOINTED and my never cast another vote for him.

[CatWoman]

19. Walt, I know better than to argue with you

I'll just say that I'm very happy that you will still vote for him

:hi:

[DS1]

73. BY REFUSING TO ARGUE YOU HAVE BECOME ZELL MILLER!!

YYEARARRAAAGHHHH!!!

[Walt Starr]

132. Look at it this way, If Barack Obama COULDN'T piss off

Walt Starr, he'd probably be too radical to ever go anywhere in the Democratic Party.

:shrug:

:hi:

[sandnsea]

27. I think it's misguided

"What I think is that it was an ideologically driven war. I think that George Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but I think there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position. It's a consequence of that single-mindedness that we did not create the kind of international framework that would have allowed success once we decided to go in."

That's what he said. He didn't give the Bushies a pass, they're framing it differently, that's all. Bush has a unilateral, ideological foreign policy that causes them to make dreadful mistakes. Much easier to argue that, than to try to prove lies.

[bhunt70]

33. why vote for him once and then decide never to vote for him again before

seeing what he does during his term.

seems crazy to me

[Walt Starr]

100. Read the words

I said I *may* never vote for him again.

I'll watch what happens and if this rhetoric matches his actions, I' vote against him.

[maggrwaggr]

58. Ding ding ding ding!

Exactly.

[MikeG]

18. I saw the interview - Obama was not going to be goaded.

He did a good job. If he would have said anything stronger, that would have been the story.

Which is what Russert was instructed to do by Rove.

[union_maid]

22. Thank you

I just read and posted to that thread. Some of the bile on that thread is worthy of any freeper site. To paraphrase, let's keep in mind the danger that we "become our enemy the instant that we preach" cause we're really reminding me of John Ashcroft, Rush Limbaugh and Rummy all rolled into one with this attack on Obama.

[unfrigginreal]

23. I'm not interested in burning him at the stake...

but I am interested in him not making the mistake of painting Bush as well intentioned. The convention shouldn't be a Bush Bash but it damned sure shouldn't be a Bush lovefest either.

[WyLoochka]

76. Although the knee jerk vehemence

against Obama by a few people who have seen and heard him only one measly time has me in a state of shock, I agree about the use of the terms "sincere" and well-intentioned." These words are added by many Dems gratuitously and IMO it is a huge mistake. These words are not an accurate description of BushCo and are fighting words to many loyal Dems, so why utter them at all? It's entirely unnecessary.

It's wise to refrain from being downright verbally vicious, but there is not one reason to offer up anything, that can be construed by anyone, as being complementary to *ush in any way shape or form. "Swing voters" will NOT even notice that these gratuitous words that end up authenticating the "benefit of the doubt" meme are missing. All Dems should stop this counter-productive nonsensical use of the language immediately.

That being said Obama, overall, was very impressive. It's obvious, when elected, he is not going to be any puke butt-kisser.

[Zhade]

108. Excellent post. A must-read.

NT!

[Pastiche423]

26. "...the need for Dems to watch what they say."

WTF?

It appears many here are turning into Ari "watch what you say" Fleisher!

Are you reading your own words?

Is the Democratic party now the Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up party?

The only way to "win" is to NOT be the opposition party?

Just what the fuck does the Democratic Party stand for?

:grr:

[Doomsayer13]

29. "Being Smart" is different from "shutting up"

Obama has been on the offensive ever since he started running, as have many Dems. But just becuase we refuse to devolve ourselves into "fuck yourself" Cheney doesn't mean Democrats aren't fighting. The calm, seasoned, and reasoned man wins in a debate over the raving angry lunatic. Don't believe me? Ask Howard Dean.

[Zhade]

110. See post #102.

NT!

[CatWoman]

31. No, I'm not advocating that dems shut the fuck up and sit down and

not call bush on his lies.

I could have phrased my points a little better, I agree.

However, I am advocating that dems not give red meat to the GOP slime machine --

I used Whoppie Goldberg as an example.

If we don't go on the attack like they do, if we are not willing to shout on the airwaves their hypocrisy, we are reduced to walking that fine line.

[Pastiche423]

38. Oh dear, what would the repugs think!

Sorry, I don't buy it. If the Democratic party does not stand up for the beliefs it was founded on, it deserves to wither.

I would gander that a large percentage of American people would agree that honesty trumps worrying about "what others think".

Do you honestly think that Dems can win using the repug script? If you do, that says a lot about how you feel regarding the strength of the Democratic Party.

[CatWoman]

45. Well, Pastiche

all I know is I keep hearing on televison and radio about this "liberal hate fest".

See Jon Stewert's "Talking Points" video.

If we don't adapt a similar strategy, what are we going to do?

I didn't see/hear ONE democrat denounce Dennis Miller calling Kerry/Edwards homosexuals.

[Pastiche423]

51. You just proved my point

"I didn't see/hear ONE democrat denounce Dennis Miller calling Kerry/Edwards homosexuals."

Could it be because not one democrat is standing up for Democrats? Could it be they are too afraid to assert their beliefs?

I heard and read the same crap in 2002. Din't work then and it won't work now.

[CatWoman]

93. I agree with you on that point:

Democrats are not standing up for Democrats.

Maybe that's why most are hesitant about going out on a limb........

[maggrwaggr]

79. Yes. If the Dems are gonna be pussies, they deserve to lose

that's the bottom line.

George Bush is considered by many to be a "decisive leader" because he acts on his convictions, even if his convictions are criminal and illegal and immoral.

It's the same reason Tony Soprano is admired.

Do we want a gangster in the White House?

Apparently we're content to let the meanest motherfucker win the fight.

[Blue_Roses]

39. Thanks for the voice

of reason:) I just don't get it...I heard the interview and I'm still wondering why ...:shrug: I thought he did a great job with potatoboy.

[maggrwaggr]

75. The Dems should have stood up for Whoopie!

That's what's pathetic!

Where was our leadership there?

Do you think the GOP would let us do that to one of THEIRS?

Hell, no, they'd be all over it as a team!

I don't recall the Dems saying ANYTHING about what happened to Whoopie!

Yeah, just sit back and enjoy it, because they're right and we're wrong!

Good grief!

[Zhade]

113. But Obama himself gave red meat to the GOP.

By wrongly stating that b*shco is "sincere" in wanting to make America safer, he conceded a false premise to the Republican party.

I contend it was an honest mistake. But it was still a bad move. It bolsters a lie that benefits b*sh.

[kiahzero]

81. Not quite

Ari was saying "Watch what you say, or the government's going to get you."

The posters here are saying "It'd be better if we didn't say X, from a strategic point of view."

There's a huge difference between the two.

[Pastiche423]

85. "Watch what you say"

MEANS watch what you say!

It makes no difference whether it is uttered by a Dem or a repug.

Why does anyone have to watch what they say if they ARE TELLING THE TRUTH?

[kiahzero]

136. Simplistic thinking

There is a difference between a threat, and an appeal to think strategically. Ari was making a threat. Catwoman was making an appeal to think strategically.

[PopSixSquish]

30. My Flabber's been Gasted Today!

Like you, Catwoman, I actually get to be "represented" in the Senate by Zell and the honorable Mr. Obama ain't nothing like him. I've read his policies and bio on his website and actually contributed money to his campaign.

But then what do I know? :shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. I agree, CatWoman.

We will be picking up a Senate seat when Barak wins and there's not one person on DU who can say a republican would be better.

[davsand]

35. There are those who get it and those who don't.

Maybe it is because those of us who actually LIVE in Illinois are used to dealing with it a media just WAITING for the chance to nail a Dem, but I find it really interesting that the Illinois Dems are the ones who know Obama and we aren't hunting for the torches and pitchforks yet (well, most of us anyhow...)

Politics in Illinois is a BLOOD sport and make no mistake about it. Our veteran politicos are able to see the media land mines for what they are and navigate them with total control. Obama did that today and several on here don't see it.

It is a shame they don't see it, but I am working really hard to see that several on here are new to the political arena, and have little idea of how quickly things can go from sugar to shit when any politician makes a mis-step--let alone a minority one who is already seen as a liberal. (I have to wonder--do they NOT remember what happened to Braun when she made mistakes?)

Saying in public that bush did ANYTHING other than blindly follow bad info is just a horrible mistake on so many levels (one of which is a potential libel suit, BTW.) Wouldn't THAT look nice for the Illinois Dem party if our candidate for Senate got hit with a lawsuit???

I let myself get pissed off early on about this witch hunt, but as of now I'm just kind of embarrassed about how some of the DUers are acting. I can only hope they calm down, re-medicate, or else wise up very soon.

I'm still an Obama supporter, and I fully intend to continue working for the man. He's a good guy and will be a wonderful Senator.

Bless you, CatWoman and everyone else for being voices of reason when they are needed!


Laura

[Doomsayer13]

41. This is very true

Just think at how the Trib or the Sun-Times would relish the chance to destroy Obama's pristine image. Look at what they did to Jack Ryan for chrissake... and he was a Republican! These were Republican newspapers! Can you imagine what they'd to do a liberal Dem like Obama?

It's no coincidence that the longest surviving politicians in Illinois, men like Paul Simon (RIP), Jim Edgar, Dick Durbin, and others, were seasoned politicos, or in the case of Paul Simon, they were as clean as they could come.

[never cry wolf]

64. You're right on it, here's what I put on a now locked thread

Obama is a wonderful dem. He has his race sewn up, unless he makes a major mis-step that the RW attack machine can blow all out of proportion. They tried today with similar trap question by two different whores, and he was too smart to fall into the trap.

This is POLITICS, they are supposed to be politicians! Ever watch their proceedings on C-Span? Have you ever seen a more "polite" and tactful proceeding? Even the most liberal Dems refer to pigs like santorum as "my esteemed colleague," and vice versa.

If Obama had called bunnypants a treasonous liar it would have been headlines all over not only the Chicago and Illinois papers, but across the nation. It is about the only thing that could do him serious harm.

Kanary, as to your reference to him being in it for the money, just what do you know about the man? He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, where he was the first black ever elected President of the Harvard Law Review. Don't ya think that upon graduation he could have gone to any high powered firm in the nation for big bucks or clerked for anyone on the SCOTUS?

What did he do? read below, please. This guy is the goods, the real deal. A state sen calling the POTUS a liar would NOT play in Peoria, nor would it assist the rest of the Dem slate. Lighten up, ok??

Obama graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science and a specialty in international relations. He worked as a community organizer in some of Chicago's toughest neighborhoods, helping church groups create job-training programs, reform area schools, and improve city services.

He went on to Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude and served as the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. After law school, Obama organized one of the largest voter registration drives in Chicago history to help Bill Clinton's election, and worked as a civil rights lawyer on cutting edge voting rights and employment discrimination cases in federal and state courts.

Currently a senior lecturer specializing in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, Obama has served on the boards of some of Chicago's leading foundations and chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $50 million philanthropic effort to reform the public schools.

http://www.obamaforillinois.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={98F1584F-9302-4038-BE87-6B52E9151CB3}

[maggrwaggr]

69. yes, his race is sewn up, that's why he has the bully pulpit

Or have you not heard of the "bully pulpit".

It's something that "leaders" use.

Know what "leader" is? It's someone who makes decisions and takes stances that may not be popular, but that are RIGHT.

[never cry wolf]

74. Jack Ryan had his race locked up too

He is a State Sen from Illinois. He does NOT have a bully pulpit from which to call the sitting POTUS a liar. He would get eaten alive by the "liberal" media.

[salin]

90. fair point to raise

though I would see him as safer and safer to say these things when the election is closer. If you want to look at someone wasting a bully pulpit - look to my Senator... Evan Bayh. Doesn't have a real opponent... oh - but he was still defending the WMDs lie a month or two ago... *sigh* From that point - I also see your point. We never had reason to think that Bayh WOULD use his possible bully pulpit... but with a more clear liberal candidate - there is more hope. I better understand your frustration and the source of the hyperbolic comparison to Zell.

[in_cog_ni_to]

91. Are you kidding me? The RW Illinois media

would DESTROY him in a week if he made a misstep. We wouldn't have a Democratic Candidate in the Senate! Period.

[maggrwaggr]

97. so the RW media now is our leader?

and we're supposed to cowtow to them, so as not to piss them off?

Then we're already dead in the water, folks. Time to give up and move somewhere else.

[nostamj]

123. ???

the RW media is a REALITY.

we need STEALTH and STRATEGY, not taking their sick bait and providing them the spun-filth they need.

sheesh!

let the man make his speech!

and THANK GOD he didn't make a meaningless 'gaffe' that would have BLUNTED any impact that speech *might* have made...

OR, as you prefer, BURN HIM IN EFFIGY *While* he's giving the speech... and cash KKKarl's check afterwards.

[CatWoman]

42. Laura

thanks :hi:

As you can see, I'm getting flamed left and right on this.

I can handle it :D

[davsand]

49. You are a tough broad...

And that is one of my highest and most sincere compliments. If anyone can take it and hand it back on here it is you, my dear! :loveya:

Laura

[Zhade]

114. See post #102. Obama made a mistake.

An honest one, I believe, but still a mistake.

[salin]

37. One thing about the Miller comparison

that gives me just a tiny bit of enjoyment ... in terms of imagining how much discomfort that comparison would likely bring to Zell... ;-)

[Blue_Roses]

44. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

so true, so true, so true...Zell would shit a brick to think he was looked at in comparison with Obama...ROFLMAO...

Thank-fully, Zell doesn't have to worry about looking like Obams. He still fully supports Bush and last I heard, HE is the one speaking at the repub convention NOT Obama...

This is so ridiculous. Zell=Obama--NOT!

[blm]

40. Hallelujah!

The voice of reason.

[JohnKleeb]

43. I dont see Zell saying he would have voted against IWR either

nor do I see Obama asking Zell to chair with him democrats for Bush.

[nostamj]

46. well, PRAISE the mod

who locked that slit trench!

[KittyWampus]

47. The Thread You're Referring To Didn't Even Start With A Direct Quote

so we could judge for ourselves.

Someone ELSE had to find the transcript.

He was being diplomatic but did NOT give Bush or the Iraq War a pass.

Keep the Left divided... that is the GOP's strategy.

[maggrwaggr]

48. "the need for Dems to watch what they say."

I'm really shocked that you, or anyone else on DU would write such a thing.

What we have a NEED for is for people, anyone, to tell the GODDAMN TRUTH.

Are you living on the same planet as I?

[nostamj]

54. what is said here on DU

and what is said by a progressive democratic candidate for the Senate on national television are just not going to be the same.

calling Obama a "traitorous piece of shit" was WAY over the top.

*some* of us here on DU *might* have applauded Obama pulling a 'Whoopi' and delivering DAYS of red meat "Hate-Filled Liberal" ammo but, not all... not all.

grossly poor choice of a target and deservedly locked.

[maggrwaggr]

57. Tom Daeschle, is that you?

I sure didn't expect him to call GWB a "piece of shit"

But it sure would be nice if somebody would call him a liar.

It sure would be nice if someone would remind the American people that it was GWB who "led" America into an unprecedently illegal war against an enemy who had never attacked us ....

It sure as hell wasn't the CIA.

It would be nice if our keynote speaker would show that he has a little testosterone in him and actually ACT AND SPEAK IN AN AGGRESSIVE MANNER AS IF HE MIGHT ACTUALLY WANT TO WIN IN THIS HARDBALL GAME OF POLITICS.

Who here's tired of Dem's being "nice?"

I am. And so are a hell of a lot others.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[maggrwaggr]

63. NOW who's over the top?

I'm a Karl Rove wet dream, am I?

:eyes:

I actually find that pretty funny.

[nostamj]

67. if the foo shits....

gee, you think calling Obama a 'traitorous POS' isn't doing Karl's work for him...

<clue phone ringing>

[Kipepeo]

61. some thoughts

I don't think a simple, "Yes, I believe Bush was lying" is in any way out of order for a Dem. candidate to say.

I want more of them to start saying it. He lied. He lied and Americans paid the price with their lives.

But I also think calling Obama a traitorous piece of shit is way way way over the top and undeserved considering his progressive platform and him saying flat out in the same interview that he would have voted aganist the IWR.

I don't think there is a need for Democrats to watch what they say.

I think there is a need for Democrats to speak the truth and to frame the debate instead of letting the Repukes frame it.

I don't think Whoopi did anything wrong in the slightest. What went wrong in that situation was 1) the Republican noise machine making a big deal out of nothing and 2) Dems in the public eye not laughing it off and using it as an opportunity to point out right-wing hypocrisy.

We need to beat them at that game. We should have sent out pettty talking points about Dennis Miller's comments at a Bush rally in WI. It happened right after their manufactured Republican outrage over Whoopi so it would have been the perfect time to drive home their hypocrisy.

[Zhade]

117. Another excellent post.

NT!

[Pastiche423]

130. Best post in the thread

IMHO

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Another "If you can't say something nice.." thread.

When did Democrats get worried about free speech? Oh, yeah, 1968 when all those troublemakers started shouting that people were dying in Vietnam while the "practical" leaders in the convention wanted to sing "Happy Days Are Here Again."

[Bluebear]

55. Zell is speaking at the GOP convention, Obama at the Dem. convention

That is all I need to to know at this point in time to differentiate them.

[Kanary]

59. Could it *maybe* have something to do with the constant

shouts, for months now, that if we "don't get in line, we're voting for bush", and related screams?

Where were the calls for some moderation on that?

Kanary, who knows just how hopeless this is........:((((((((((((((((((

[starroute]

62. Obama may be even more subtle than anyone's giving him credit for

Think about it -- which image of Bush is more likely to turn people away from voting for him:

a) A sincere but misguided man who was naive enough to believe Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction and was so much the prisoner of his own ideology that he stumbled into invading Iraq rather than taking the measures against terrorism that would actually make America safer.

b) A crafty, Machiavellian schemer with a broad geopolitical vision which he recognized could be advanced only by leading through passion rather than through logic, even if that meant taking a few creative liberties with the truth.

Many people here are so outraged against their own bugaboo of Bush as (b) that they don't realize those same points could be taken as positives by Freepers and similar macho types who consider themselves hard-nosed and daring in their approach to world affairs.

But history shows that you don't win elections in this country by painting your opponents as strong -- only by painting them as wimps.

Creating a general image of Bush as weak, self-deluded, and incapable of recognizing the truth if it bites him on the ass is **far** more likely to destroy him than describing him as an unreconstructed villain. In fact, I think Obama's line is something we should pick up as a major meme and spread far and wide.

Even beyond that, if the dirt on Cheney finally manages to break the surface (Plame affair, Halliburton scandals), it could be very useful to be able to present Bush as the weak-willed, easily-led dupe of evil mastermind Cheney. That possibility's got a lot going for it.

[maggrwaggr]

66. (sigh) All people will "hear" from Obama's comment is "BUSH IS SINCERE"

Listen, I work in TV commercials, all of you SEE TV commercials, you know how it works.

Subtlety doesn't work. We're in the business of selling here.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. I think some of the "more liberal than thou" types are agents provocateur

...who are deliberately trying to divide us against one another.

[Kanary]

77. Call Homeland Security! Call the FBI! Alert! Alert! RED ALERT!

Round us all up!

That cage in Boston is just waiting for all of us!

Ship us to Gitmo!

Got all your spit stored up and ready to let loose with it?

I'm sure you'll feel better soon.......

:crazy:

Kanary

[Liberal Veteran]

82. Funny how the usual suspects take offense to me saying that.

But the fact remains that some people never have ANYTHING positive to say about the democratic party and go out of their way to make mountains out of molehills.

If I've started to become a bit suspicious of what motivates some people to be so consistently negative when we have an absolutely great team running for president this year, that is my perogative.

[Kanary]

84. You're right! Round us up! Man the cannons!

[Liberal Veteran]

88. Whatever friend.

:eyes:

[Kanary]

94. Whatever, indeed.

And, :eyes: right back atcha..... those :eyes: are a great in-kind donation to your party.

I have posted *many* very supportive and positive posts today........ I just went through my "my posts" and the ONLY POSTS THAT GET ANY RESPONSE AT ALL ARE THE NEGATIVE ONES.

*YOU* could choose to respond to the positive ones. But, you're having more fun accusing some of us of not just being feepers, but agent provocateurs. Good way to build that strong party, eh? If we're such a threat, why aren't you alerting on us? Why aren't you warning Skinner about the spies on the loose?

So, go ahead and load your weapons, and have at it. Fire away.

You are part of it.

Kanary

[Liberal Veteran]

99. Interesting how you seem to think agents comment was directed at you.

It was a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular. The fact that you were offended by it says more about your own state of mind than mine.

[Kanary]

103. It was directed at all who hold a different opinion from yours.

[Liberal Veteran]

107. And of course you are familiar with the my entire array of opinions?

Once again trying to make this something personal between us. If you dislike me or disagree with me that much, ignore me.

I have no quarrel with you. Why are you so determined to pick a fight with me?

[maggrwaggr]

105. Shit! My cover is blown!

Man, you're good!

How'd you know it was me, Scooter Libby, sitting here deliberately trying to get people to vote for Ralph Nader?

Have we got a job for you at the CIA!

[Liberal Veteran]

111. How can anyone take offense at a simple statement of fact?

Is it your contention that this board does not attract disruptors, people who wish to divide us, and trolls from time to time?

Why are you taking this so personally?

[maggrwaggr]

116. uh .. cuz I've been called "hysterical" "insane" "karl rove's wet dream"

and a ton of other names I can't even remember right now from these posts today.

If you weren't referring to me, then please ignore my post above.

Yes, of course, there are plenty of trolls here. In my experience they usually stick out plainly and don't last long.

[WoodrowFan]

122. you ever read about the Spanish Civil War?

the worst enemy of the Republicans were the uber-leftists within their own ranks that would frag their own allies if they were no ideologically pure. It didn't matter if they were fighting actual fascists and in favor of a democracy, the "purer-than-thou" types would stab the liberals and moderates in the back again and again. Some things don't change.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

137. Historically wrong.

The Communists (CGT) were the "moderates" of the Republican side. They went after the Anarchists of the FFI/CNT and the Trotskyites of the POUM because of their "Uber Leftism". The Communists were the instigators of the violence in the name of Stalinist purity and mollifying the British and French governments.

[WoodrowFan]

139. thanks for the correction// (NT)

[DS1]

71. Hey, I just found out that shreiking makes it true.

and for all our Obama bashers - -

[WoodrowFan]

83. and it's more true if it's LOUDER! (NT)

[0007]

86. Thank you sweetheart for putting this out in front

Screw the freepers and trolls that are out on a hate trip.

[Jawja]

101. Here, here,

Cat!

:hi:

[salin]

121. Kudos, Catwoman

there are actually some back and forth discussions on this thread - rather than just defensive/reactive posts (though some of those are here as well) that had marked the early go rounds on this topic. Always am glad when I read folks beginning to discuss again, and actually try to see from where the other comments are springing and then discuss those points of view.

[SammyWinstonJack]

124. He was being a politician

He was playing the game. He wants to be elected. Who can fault him for that? He played along with the Media Whores. He said what he had to say. Bush* does the same thing! It's a shame that "we" have to watch what we say and they don't!

[Kanary]

134. Kerry, it was reported on 60 Minutes, promised the people of Nevada

that Yucca Mountain would not go forward under his administration.

1. He took a definite stand.

2. There are many people invested in this Yucca Mountain thing, including RR workers, truck drivers, etc.

3. Kerry is taking a risk of losing votes by turning off the centrist, blue-collar workers involved.


So, if Kerry can take this risk, why can't he take other risks? Or, did he make a mistake in speaking clearly and definitively?

Maybe a smaller demographic, but he still wants to win Nevada, right?

Kanary