I cannot understand these types of "Democrats"...

[kentuck]

The ones that support Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Kucinich, or the others but feel so threatened by the competition that they feel they must somehow tear down the opposing candidate. Sometimes they tell outright lies. Now they are all feeling threatened by General Clark. Therefore, we must tear him down - even if we have to use right-wing propaganda to do so.

This seems so un-Democratic to me. There is no foresight, no vision, in such attacks on the opposing candidates. I thought the people in the Democratic Party were smarter - at least, the Democrats here on DU?

Of course, we all think our candidate is the best. He or she is the best candidate to beat Bush. Yes, we all want our candidate to win the primary. But do we really have to attack others preferred choices? They believe just as strongly as you. Why can we not respect the people at large of the Democratic Party to choose the candidate they think is best for America? That is democracy. Is there a better way to choose candidates?

Dean is McGovern. Kucinich is too liberal. Kerry supported the war. Gephardt stood in the Rose Garden with Bush. Sharpton still has the Tawana Brawley matter over his head, etc, etc. None of them are perfect. We will have to accept one of them with all their flaws. But must we pretend that one candidates flaws are worse than the other? I don't think that is very smart.

[MuseRider]

1. We should not

be bashing but I'll be damned if I can find a way to question people about their candidate without being accused by someone of bashing. When we get over this maybe we can figure it all out. Until then all questions seem to be off limits.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

4. A Lot of It Is About Tone, IMO

I'll be damned if I can find a way to question people about their candidate without being accused by someone of bashing

Tone and bias. But yes, sometimes it's possible to post an honest question complete with disclaimers and it still causes a flamewar. That happened to me once when I had a question about Dean, and it has also happened to people who've had questions about Clark.

DTH

[Brian Sweat]

8. Legitimate questions are one thing,

but accusing him of being a Republican, being responsible for Waco, being a War Criminal, being a PNAC operative and such, is over the top.

[LittleApple81]

2. Please, please do not let this one become another flame bait!

I know that is not your intention, but ANYTHING you say about ANY candidate has become a black hole consuming everybody's energy and civility.

[dpbrown]

3. These people are zealous enough to join an online political forum

And probably tend to the over-dramatic.

[cally]

5. I'm amazed and dismayed, also

We have a primary. Much of this will come out and be debated. I don't understand the anger at this point. I'm interested in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates but everytime I see a post bashing another candidate and saying that their candidate is the anointed one it makes me dislike their candidate. All the candidates have months to make their case and for all of us to make up our minds. I just don't care at this point who promotes the candidates, what their grassroots support is, how they got in the race. What I do care about is who they are as people, what their positions are, and how I can be assured they will promote their positions they espouse to win. I'm willing to pay attention to honest debate, but what has happened here is absurd.

BTW, I have not chosen a candidate yet.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. i agree ...anyone of themwould be better than bush*

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. What about those type of Democrats who

provide information with which to judge the candidates for yourself?


http://www.vpirg.org/campaigns/financeReform/cfr_page111.html
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html
http://www.vtce.org/deancrisisagvt.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1907-2003Jul2
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:MTUmAoWoSesJ:stacks.msnbc.com/news/930194.asp%3F0si%3D-%26cp1%3D1+%22democratic+leadership+council%22++site:stacks.msnbc.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/13/dean_backed_medicare_cuts_in_1995_gephardt_says_boston_globe
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/31792

[zeemike]

9. Are you talking to me…

Well perhaps not, but it feels like it because I have asked some questions that go ignored about Clark.
So I want to know, is asking the following questions trying to tear down Clark unfairly?

He said he supported Nixon Reagan, and Bush, does he now support their policies?
Is he for or against trickle down economics?
Did he like it when Reagan busted the unions?
Just those two questions are enough for now, but am I a flamer if I ask them? Am I being undemocratic to want an answer?

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. i have one as well

may i see his voter registration card?

[bowens43]

10. You completely misunderstand the opposition to Clark.

It has nothing to do with feeling threatened. If the information concerning Clark's past support of republican administrations is true, the source of the info is irrelevant and the implications are immense.

The kind of Democrats that I can't understand are those who want to only hear the positives about a particular candidate. How can we make an informed decision based only on the articles that do nothing but praise the candidates? Don't you think it's better the negatives come out BEFORE the general election? Do you think the Karl Roves of the world are going to ignore the negatives?

Pretend one candidates flaws are worse then the others? There is no pretending about it. There is ONE candidate who has fewer negatives and more positives. As of yet, I don't know which candidate that is but that is what we are trying to figure out.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Also if we think a candidate is too conservative to lead the Democratic

party, whether it is Dean or Clark or whoever, when are we supposed to point this out, besides now? The Republicans aren't going to attack our candidate for being too conservative! If someone is running for the Democratic Party nomination for President, it is perfectly reasonable to question whether that person really is in tune with our principles, whether that person really is the best choice to lead our party.

[boxster]

17. I disagree on part of your premise.

I think it has a lot to do with feeling threatened, but that's human nature.

Before Clark announced, to most people Dean was the front-runner. I think he and his supporters feel threatened by Clark's initial success and media attention.

But please understand, that is only natural. Dean and his camp have put in a tremendous amount of effort up to this point and have had fundraising success that Dems would have never thought possible even 12 months ago. It would be perfectly acceptable to be a little aggravated at Clark's perceived easy rise to among the top candidates.

[bloom]

28. I wasn't even a Dean supporter before Clark entered the race-

There wasn't any reason to worry about him when he was a non-candidate.

I was perfectly happy to vote for Kucinich and let the chips fall where they may.

I think some people are not paying attention and invent their own reasons why they think people are against Clark.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. What part of my premise do you disagree with?

Part of my premise is that the time to decide who should lead our party is the primaries.

The other part of my premise is that the Republicans are not going to do anything to expose our candidates as 'too conservative'.

My conclusion is that the only ones who can do so, are other Democrats, and now is the time to do it.

[catforclark2004]

19. You completely misunderstand Clark's positions.....

Doing homework helps. I did mine and want General Clark to become our 45th President.

He took four (4) bullets for us.....and is now to take a few more as a candidate.

Go, Wes, Go.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. dead on

nothing to add since you said it perfectly

[The Magistrate]

11. Well Said, My Bluegrass Friend

The competition among the various Democratic candidates should consist in their displaying the attacks they would make against the usurper in the White House during the general election.

Whoever can do that most effectively should receive the nomination.

Whoever does receive the nomination should receive the whole-hearted support, and the votes, of all opposed to the most reactionary reptiles currently in power: these must be turned out at all costs.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[pbeal]

13. Divide your enemy

Most American political propaganda is aimed not at the public in general but at the members of the opposing political party, its designed to be picked up by supporters of one candidate to be used against supporters of another in the same party, it weakens both candidate by makeing supporters of either canidate unwilling to vote for the other canidate in the actual election.

Its sad really but that's where a winner take all plurality system takes you.

The Republicans have this down to an art(must be all those years obsessing over communism that they Copied out Joe Stalins political play book)

[forgethell]

15. One thing about

the in-fighting between the various Democratic candidates is that it is all on video. It will come back to haunt whoever the final nominne is, both the things he said that he wishes he hadn't, and what his primary opponents say. We Democrats may be smarter than the Republicans,have better ideas, care more for people, etc., but they don't eat their young like we do. this is what may kill us in the general election.

[haymaker]

16. Dean is McGovern?

Practice what you preach pal.

[boxster]

18. Did you read anything else in that post other than "Dean is McGovern"?

Obviously, each of those statements was meant to be an example and a oversimplification of the positions people have taken on the various candidates.

Though, I think you did manage to prove the poster's point, inadvertently.

[haymaker]

21. Blew that one, sorry.

I am a firm believer in letting every candidate have their say, but I will defend them against ridiculous attacks meant only to bleed them. I did miss that one above, sorry. But I will not back away from these attacks, upon almost any of them. I find it hard to defend Lieberman though, he's on his own. I'll leave that to Dolstein.

[boxster]

23. No problem. Actually, I think the whole "Dean is McGovern" thing

is a pretty ludicrous comparison and has been misinterpreted by a lot of people.

I think the media and the RW use that comparison in an attempt to point to McGovern's landslide loss, and not necessarily his politics, which is, of course, what a lot of DU'ers have considered the issue and defended. I think it's just the RW and others trying to paint Dean as the same kind of "loser" that McGovern (or Mondale, for that matter) is perceived by the RW to have been. It may have nothing to do with their politics.

I could be wrong, but I think it might be that simple. Either way, it's pretty dumb. It's a different era and the culture and atmosphere just aren't the same.

[kentuck]

24. I agree, boxster..

It's a feeble attempt to say Dean will lose in a landslide to the moron now in charge. I don't buy it.

[NoKingGeorge]

20. Right ,so you go one to repeat their accusations.

You make a point about something not being appropriate then you go on and do the very thing you are bitching about.
Hey I know , let's not talk about anyone other than our own choice. Get it? No commenting on someone else's candidate. This is harder to do than bashing. Maybe that is why freepers use the easier way of bashing????

[kentuck]

22. I think you are purposefully misrepresenting the point....

"Repeating the accusations" is showing examples for those that might need examples to clarify the comments. I can criticize every candidate in the field for some reason or another, and I can do it without getting personal and accusing that candidate's supporters of somehow being wrong, stupid, or unpatriotic. It is the manner in which some people choose to criticize candidates other than their own. They do it in such a way as to assassinate their character and to make it much more difficult in the future if that candidate happens to be the nominee. How difficult is it to understand that your choice may not be the nominee? What are we gonna do then? Take back all the stupid remarks we have unthinkingly made in a moment of passion?

[Pastiche423]

25. "Democrats" is the operative word, no?

[jarab]

26. I can understand

What DU Democrats do for their choice of candidate are what the Dem candidates have done to each other for ages. They - our candidates - tear the other Dem candidates down to the detriment of the party as a whole. All this happens repeatedly with us while the Repukes consolidate forces much earlier and seemingly easier than we (as with the current effort to get behind AS in Ca).

The DU Dems and Dems at large are so similar to our own Dem candidates' destructive tendencies. When our candidates become less destructive to the party as a whole in their pursuit of the nomination, I would suspect we'll only then see a change in ourselves.
We mirror those we support in all aspects.

...O...

[kentuck]

27. There should be a distinction....

between Democratic opponents and Republican opponents. Save the large ammo for the Repubs.

[Loyal]

30. I agree

n/t