DU'ers...please refrain from any examination of Howard Dean.

[wyldwolf]

After all, he is above reproach, he is the only one who can beat bush, and he is the only one who can save us.

Plus he is the annointed one. And don't say he isn't or we'll... we'll... ;(

[CMT]

1. another idiotic post

There is plenty of examination of Howard Dean on DU and if you actually read some of the posts you'll realize it. As far as annoited one, I hear plenty about Clark being the "only" candidate who can beat Bush while Dean is "another McGovern"

[wyldwolf]

5. Now stay consistant...

and call this post idiotic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=394970&mesg_id=394970

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Big difference.

Go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=41214&mesg_id=41214

Now link me to the same.

[StopTheMorans]

2. why do you have to post a parody thread of every anti-clark thread?

maybe I'll one-up you and start a "DUer's...Please refrain from any examination of the Howard Dean thread in response to the "DUers please refrain from any examination of Clark" thread" :eyes: you may resume drooling and fawning now. Me, I'll wait for the debate tomorrow before I let my eyes glaze over for the general.

[wyldwolf]

4. Oh, just to get the reaction I'm getting from the Dean camp on DU

and to make the point that if you "give" you'll "get."

[StopTheMorans]

6. we "give" with substance

we "get" back with empty posts and whining. I refuse to consider the empty suit until I hear him speak for himself tomorrow, his resume can talk all it wants, I'll wait for him.

[wyldwolf]

13. You give with substance?

Repeating the same stories over and over, even after they've been debunked, is substance?

ha ha.

[StopTheMorans]

14. "repeating the same stories over and over, even

after they've been debunked". You mean debunked like some Clark supporter going "that is just a smear n/t"? The problem is, most of them HAVEN'T been debunked, people just keep insisting that they are smears aimed at Clark WITHOUT debunking them. There's a difference, and it's not subtle.

[wyldwolf]

16. Clark called the Bushes... etc. etc.

all debunked.

[renie408]

32. Clark called the Bushes??

I hadn't heard that one.

I heard the one about him having to ask his press secretary what his stand was, and I heard the one about him working a Republican fund raiser a couple of years ago at which he praised the Bush national security team, and I heard the one about him approving of the IWR vote in October of 2002 and then saying recently that he wouldn't have voted for it, and I heard the one about him voting Republican and the one about him implying that the White House wanted him to spin 9/11 as state sponsored terrorism and the one about him saying that the White House tried to get him fired from CNN, which he had to take back...

But I hadn't heard the one about him calling the Bushes.

[wyldwolf]

34. Did you hear the ones about Dean...

... refusing to set prochoice litmus tests for Federal Judges, opposing the Kyoto treaty, calling for a "re-evaluation" of our civil liberties after 9/11, and disagreeing with Pentagon cut-backs?

[renie408]

39. Yep

Which is why I support John Edwards.

[CMT]

18. your in the two wrongs make a right camp

like all Dean supporters are terrible and all Clark supporters are angels of virtue. Grow up.

[wyldwolf]

You're doing the same...

...you want Clark supporters to turn the other cheek.

Grow up.

[clar]

21. It's not a parody thread

It's a parroting thread.

[wyldwolf]

22. It's a parroting parody thread...

:)

[sfecap]

3. Too late.

He's already had his turn.

But nice try...

[wyldwolf]

7. You're right, Dean already has had his turn...

...and now he's in second place.

[StopTheMorans]

10. I'm waiting for Wesley a.ka. Arnold (all sword and no sound-bites)

to start falling after he has to actually debate his positions with the other Dems. He hasn't had to do that; he's merely had a forum to expound his thoughts unopposed in the news for the past few weeks. Don't worry, the more people see of him, the more they'll examine him, and the more they'll realize he's not the second coming of JC they thought he was.

[wyldwolf]

15. Speculation...

...we'll see when Howard a.k.a Eggo Waffle drops a few more points in the polls.

[StopTheMorans]

20. "Waffle"

take a look at Clark "the Great Equivocator #2" last week, and then try and call Dean a waffler. He claimed on consecutive days that he probably would have voted for the war, then the next day, when he realized that would cost him support, he flip-flopped and did the dance and said "oh wait, I opposed the war the whole time". That waffle is monumental in proportion to anything that Dean has said, and it wasn't like he made these statements months apart, they were separated by mere hours. "Remove the Sequoia tree from your own candidate's eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from another's candidate"

[wyldwolf]

24. Dean is a waffler...

...and we saw if front and center when he came across as an amatuer on "Meet The Press."

[StopTheMorans]

26. you just avoided the huge point I just made

and proved my point from 2 posts ago! You didn't debunk my post, you merely called Dean a waffler again while ignoring Clark's UBER-WAFFLE from just last week. And you haven't said where Dean is a waffler, you merely insist on calling him one. Substance would be appreciated, you just added fuel to the fire on my post about how Clark supporters insist on saying that criticisms aimed at Clark have been debunked when they haven't.

[wyldwolf]

29. No, I ignored the point...

You have Clark waffling on one point - the war - which isn't the end all of issues for most Americans.

Dean, on the other hand, looked like a babbling kid on Meet The Press and couldn't stay consistant.

[StopTheMorans]

31. again, you ignored the point from the post I just made

would you like to name some issues? Or would you like to just keep citing one appearance from weeks ago without any quotes?

[wyldwolf]

36. Did you see the interview?

It was discussed here in depth. I would rather discuss Dean refusing to set pro-choice litmus tests for Federal Judges, opposing the Kyoto treaty, calling for a "re-evaluation" of our civil liberties after 9/11, and disagreeing with Pentagon cut-backs.

[StopTheMorans]

41. yes

and you are distorting the truth heavily. By saying "disagreeing with Pentagon cut-backs", you are ignoring the fact that Dean would divert many of those funds to other programs (i.e. alternative energy as an option to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and thereby increase our security as a nation). The Kyoto treaty, while I am HEAVILY in favor of it, is a tough sell politically and would be impossible to pass without one house of congress being Democratic. and the "re-evaluation" of civil liberties after 9-11? Why don't you look at the 99 senators (Feingold is the only one who can be absolved) who voted for the PATRIOT Act? You must evaluate positions in the context they were formed, at that time period, that was a reasonable statement (and "re-evaluate" is in no way the same as "curtail"). And as for "litmus tests"? It's not a politically expedient word for any candidate to use. So while you are waffling on finding real waffles, I'll stick to the current ones that are actually meaningful in the context of the present debates.

[wyldwolf]

44. Wait... clarify...

By saying "disagreeing with Pentagon cut-backs", you are ignoring the fact that Dean would divert many of those funds to other programs (i.e. alternative energy as an option to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and thereby increase our security as a nation).

If he won't cut pentagon funds, there will BE NO funds to divert.

The Kyoto treaty, while I am HEAVILY in favor of it, is a tough sell politically and would be impossible to pass without one house of congress being Democratic.

So, since it is a "tough sell" politcally he is opposed to it? Universal health care is a tough sell, too. Doesn't interfer with the necessity of it.

and the "re-evaluation" of civil liberties after 9-11? Why don't you look at the 99 senators (Feingold is the only one who can be absolved) who voted for the PATRIOT Act? You must evaluate positions in the context they were formed, at that time period, that was a reasonable statement (and "re-evaluate" is in no way the same as "curtail").

So, you think Dean meant he would grant MORE civil liberties after 9/11? And we're not talking about any other person but Dean. The 99 senators aren't in question.

[StopTheMorans]

46. clarifying

"If he won't cut pentagon funds, there will BE NO funds to divert."

look at the nature of the word "divert", i.e. he will take some pentagon funds and DIVERT them to other issues under the national-security umbrella

"the Kyoto treaty:So, since it is a "tough sell" politcally he is opposed to it? Universal health care is a tough sell, too. Doesn't interfer with the necessity of it."

it's a necessity, but right now, either way you look at it, it is an impossibility, and must be approached as such until we get control of one of the houses of congress, one way or another.


"So, you think Dean meant he would grant MORE civil liberties after 9/11? And we're not talking about any other person but Dean. The 99 senators aren't in question." I didn't say that, I said that he simply said "re-evaluate". And what did he do afterwards? Did he support the PATRIOT Act? Does he support the Victory act? No and no. Actions speak louder than words, and that one sentence rings hollow when taken out of context. So I still don't see where you see any of these things as realistic issues/liabilities with Dean, they seem like petty concerns to try and label him as something other than what he is, namely, an excellent candidate for POTUS.

[Terwilliger]

8. see?? this tit-for-tat is bullshit...it belongs in the lounge

I still say all the candidate fighting should go on in P and C...if they can move every thread about Israel/Palestine to the dungeon, they can throw all you bickerers down there

[clar]

11. I agree

it's become clear that this stuff should be relegated to P&C.

[wyldwolf]

17. Of course... I think reps from the DU camps of Dean and Clark..

..should meet and say, "truce... we won't bash if you won't."

[Terwilliger]

35. you could just hype your own candidate and alert on everything else

just praise __whoever__ and post threads about their accomplishments and goals

[Padraig18]

45. I think EVERYBODY should stop bashing!

We all need to remember that neither fair comment nor sincere disagreement with a candidate or candidates equals 'bashing'. Some of you folks need to go to Chicago (my home) and roll around in the Democratic politics there, if you think some of the puff-stuff posted here is bashing!

Grow a thicker skin, ffs! :silly:

[Padraig18]

12. Flame bait

[wyldwolf]

19. Kind of like this one...

"DU'ers...please refrain from any examination of Wes Clark. "

Posted before this thread.

[StopTheMorans]

23. if you'd take the time to examine that thread

you will see that our friend Padraig18 posted the exact same message on that thread.

[wyldwolf]

25. Consider this one, then, bringing the response front and center.

[Padraig18]

43. Yes

And I posted the exact same reply to it! :grr:

[jonnyblitz]

27. He already has been. We are just waiting to hear about your guy.

I am anxious to view the debate. Also, I don't consider dismissive name calling (usually subtle red-baiting of progressive sources) as "debunking".

[wyldwolf]

30. I consider debunking...

...Clark joked about calling the white house. Story that he ACTUALLY called the white house was debunked. But Deanies post the story almost daily.

[StopTheMorans]

33. I'll take the Uber-War Waffle

any day over that one. And yes, the war is a huge issue for most voters, just look at how Bush's request for the 87 billion has hurt him in the polls. It has cost him support on both sides of the aisle; even though people are more concerned with the financial implications of the war than the moral ones, it is still a war issue, and it is still a HUGE concern to most voters.

[wyldwolf]

38. The polls show the economy as more of an issue...

Other issues I have with Dean: refusing to set prochoice litmus tests for Federal Judges, opposing the Kyoto treaty, calling for a "re-evaluation" of our civil liberties after 9/11, and disagreeing with Pentagon cut-backs.

[StopTheMorans]

42. I just responded to those in my last post

and as for the economy being the issue, check one of my other posts in this thread for that. The war and the economy have now become hopelessly intertwined; the 87 billion request Bush made last week hurt him in the polls and cost him support on both sides of the aisle (even Lott doesn't like the amount, and other senators have questioned it, I'll have to find the link to today's globe article). The war will cost many times more than this, this is merely a first installment so to speak. You can't talk about the economy without addressing the war; if we have to give 87 billion for the war, that's 87 billion that doesn't fund our schools, provide health care or social services ,or fund first-responders. You can't take the war out of it's full context, it is a HUGE economic issue, and as such, so the War is a huge issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. It's working! It's working! Clark runs interference for Kerry!

And JFK breaks free for the goal line!

[DrGonzoLives]

37. Uh-oh, what happened?

Did some Dean supporter have the temerity to disagree that your candidate is the only one who can win? Did they have the audacity to say something in support of their own? HOW DARE THEY!

Spare me the whiny bullshit, please. :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

40. The whiney bullshit is your own...

:eyes:

[DrGonzoLives]

55. Really, how am I whining again?

What's the matter, are oo widdle feewings hurt because not everyone worships the ground Clark walks on like you do?

[wyldwolf]

59. Nah, I could care less...

...but you are obviously surprised everyone doesn't have the keen insight about Dean that you do.

[DrGonzoLives]

66. Oh, I am?

It's amazing the insights people whom I've never met have about me.

For the record, I posted on the thread this was a response to, and said the same thing. So, how about you actually use your brain for once and not just spout of the same old bullshit, mmmmmK?

[starscape]

47. This is crazy. You guys say Clark supporters are "thin-skinned?"

That's a joke. This thread has generated nothing but an entire catalogue of angry, sometimes hysterical responses from upset Deanies. You all could have chosen to be "thick-skinned," you could have ignored this altogether. It's amazing how many of you responded to this thread (which made a great point, wyldwolf ;) )

[wyldwolf]

51. Why, thank you! Glad someone got the point...

...I didn't expect a Deanie to get it and thus far none have.

[bushclipper]

52. I find it funny how reactionary everyone is about their guy...

..but ESPECIALLY the Deanites.

[StopTheMorans]

54. have you seen the number of Clark threads

here in the past 2 weeks that have absolutely no substance, or just fawn? And how, when anyone accuses Clark of anything, they are attacked viciously, and often personally, but the issue at hand with Clark is usually avoided? Substance is something Clark and many of his supporters avoid at all costs.

[bushclipper]

56. Yes. But I've seen more of them about Dean for a lot longer...

..I should just vote for Sharpton or Braun.

[StopTheMorans]

53. oh wow, look, Clark supporters being condescending

and inflating their own worth! Heavens, I never would have thought it! :eyes:

[bushclipper]

57. I'm not a Clark or Dean guy... but the Deanites make it easy...

...to be a little condescending. Actually, that isn't the right word.

It is easy to rattle your cages. If you'll look at the counter-dean threads wyldwolf starts, you'll see that.

I get his point. Dean people, on average, are a bit thin skinned. More so than that of other candidates.

[starscape]

60. oh wow, look who can't stop posting in this thread

How's your thin skin doing?

[StopTheMorans]

61. there's a difference between being thin-skinned

and trying to stop the idiocy that GD is becoming. It is not a fine line, but it is obviously lost on many of the Clark supporters in this thread. There's nothing useful, or particularly valuable about this thread, it is merely wasting space and time in GD, yet people insist on posting threads like these IN RESPONSE to Dean posts. So the people who post these things don't have a thin-skin? Please, pot, meet f'n Kettle.

[starscape]

62. The difference.

If I had a dime for every thread that was wasting time or space on DU, I would be a rich man. So deal with it. Try avoiding it. All you are keyed into are the Dean threads, but If you start paying attention to the anti-Clark threads, you will see that they are repetitive, irritating, sometimes utterly incoherent, and they always get nasty. And yet it is the Clark supporters who, in your mind, are causing all the problems here.

Negativity breeds only negativity in response. Try starting over and if you are really concerned about content on DU, be the first to set the example for everyone else.

[StopTheMorans]

65. well thanks for a coherent and well-thought out reply

I appreciate it. And second, I actually have been trying to start positive threads, and they have devolved into flame-fests every time. For example, yesterday, I attended the Dean rally in Copley Sq. here in Boston. I came back, very excited about the rally, and wanted to share the experience with any who were interested. Let me start by saying that I only described the rally; in no way did I even mention other candidates or anything that could be construed as such. But then, after 10 or so posts from people who were actually interested in what I had to say, I started getting flamed out of nowhere by a Clarkie, which really irritated me. And then another jumped in. Mind you, it was a completely positive thread, and in no way condescending or negative towards anyone. It is events like this that have keyed me into Clark supporters. Sorry for the negativity, but when you get flamed enough, it's hard to be cool about things:)

[starscape]

67. thanks

sorry to kick this thread to the top again, but I wanted to respond.

That was a good post and I may have targeted you unfairly. I am fed up with the bashing and flaming as well. Last night I was looking at threads and reading through them, not even reading the posts - just the subject lines. It really becomes just a matter of people trying to get the last word in and getting nasty with each other.

It wasn't until today that I was finally able to do what so many people have advised - to just ignore those threads. It isn't easy, when I see them I want to respond.. but as we see it just goes on and on.. and on..

I am looking forward to the primaries being over, frankly. I like Clark.. I like Dean, too. I also like Kucinich. I have a feeling we might not be seeing the endgame yet. If Hillary jumps in, who knows. I'm not sure how I feel about that yet.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. Feel free to post more positive threads about Dean and I will read them. :)

[UnapologeticLiberal]

48. This has to be one of the most idiotic discussions on this board

Come on, guys. Don't you have better things to do?

Help make this a September to Remember

[Forkboy]

49. Example number 70,478

on why we need the five sentence rule put back.

[StopTheMorans]

50. Hear Hear!

n/t

[renie408]

58. what is the five sentence rule?

[WilliamPitt]

63. My kingdom for the five-sentence rule

[bitchkitty]

64. ah, the Peewee Herman method of political debate.

Very nice.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[starscape]

69. now go put some change in the swear jar..

tough guy! ;)

[JNelson6563]

70. Making quite a name for yourself eh?

Hey whatever floats your boat.

As to "examining Dean", I'd like to straighten a little something out that may help define the line between legitimate criticism and bashing--applicable to all candidates of course.

Here is an example of a bash that some try to pass off as "legitimate criticism":

I don't like so-and-so and know he can't win because, I don't like the way he this or that superficial thing. He also once said this (insert irrelevant statement) and that makes me nervous/angry/whatever.

Therefore he is unelectable and you all shouldn't waste your time or money on this candidate.

Such posts are often completely devoid of facts and it is laughable to see the author address replies with "Did you actually READ my post???" LOL! Damn sad stuff.

Here's another in-your-face Freeper kind of POS post that we often find the author blinking oh-so-innocently when issue is taken with said post.

The only person that can beat Bush is my guy. Everyone else is unelectable. Mine is the greatest candidate ever and all the others suck.

While maybe a bit of an exaggeration I am sure we can all agree we have seen posts like it from supporters of all the campaigns.

To those who would author such whining and/or sarcastic crap as this post I am now replying to, I say to you, examine the true quality of these "constructive criticisms". Count how many actual facts are presented. Innuendo, opinion and third hand accounts of negative information are often considered "facts" by the author as well as some of the readers. This is why the line between real criticism and bashing seems so unclear--even tho' it really isn't.

It saddens me that we have let the vicious neo-cons set the tone of political dialogue at such lows, even amongst each other.

Julie

[einsteins stein]

71. Typical, wyldwolf, no go complain about how DUers treat Clark

that's all you really have to say, isn't it?