A question for Kerry supporters and a question for Kerry detractors.

[library_max]

Kerry supporters first (full disclosure, I am one). What's the frickin' rush?

There is a very reasonable case to be made that Kerry is highly likely to be the nominee. But the primaries are not over and in fact he has only about one fourth of the delegates he'd need to win on the first ballot. Not only that, but emotions are running high and supporters of other candidates are, understandably, passionate about them. Feelings are raw. Many hear the fat lady warming up in the wings, but many more are not yet ready to give up on their candidates, and there's no reason why they should.

So why are some of us talking about purges and demanding that supporters of other candidates give up and switch to Kerry? Why are some of us sneering at the other candidates and kicking them when they're down? How would we feel if the situation were reversed? Would we find that kind of treatment likely to encourage us to support a candidate who wasn't our first choice, or would that kind of treatment be more likely to antagonize us and make us consider voting third party or some other kind of emotional response?

Now for the Kerry detractors. Just exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

There's nothing wrong with supporting your candidate, regardless of how well he is doing in the primaries. And there's nothing wrong with raising legitimate concerns, asking honest questions, and making valid criticisms of any primary candidate. But there's all the difference between those things and cheap-shot attacks. If a criticism is valid, it doesn't need to be repeated dozens of times - if a question is sincere, there should be a possible answer that will satisfy the questioner - if a concern is legitimate, it shouldn't have to quote a right-wing source and it should also be open to a satisfactory answer. We can all easily recognize these distinctions when our own candidate is the target.

And, just as in the case of Kerry supporters, I'm not talking to every Kerry detractor, just the cheap-shot artists. I strongly suspect that you know who you are. Do you think you are making your candidates look good by indulging in these tactics? Do you think you're helping their chances by antagonizing other DUers? Suppose your guy does get the nomination - do you think what you're doing now will make it easier or harder for the rest of us to unite behind him?

Or is just about hatred and revenge now? If so, where does that get you? Do you care so little about the party or the country that you'd deliberately sabotage our chances in November just for a little payback?

And if you want to stand on "Well, that's my honest opinion," then let me ask you this. What do you expect the rest of us to do with our honest opinions if your guy wins? Surely you can't think that those of us who chose a different candidate have no real objections to your guy. But if your guy was the front-runner, you'd be expecting us to put those objections behind us, or at least confine ourselves to expressing them civilly and constructively, right? So why can't you do likewise? Are your objections to Kerry really so great that they overrule your objections to Bush?

Again, I am not addressing all Kerry supporters or all Kerry detractors. I think the vast majority of DUers have been quite reasonable and well-behaved on all sides of the primary debate. But the least reasonable participants in a discussion also often tend to be the loudest and the most insistent.

Also, I am not asking for "unity" or an end to debate. I am asking for an end to the poisonous atmosphere of backstabbing, self-righteousness, and hatred. And please, let's not be like the child who justifies his misbehavior by saying, "Well, they started it!"

I've been ABB since I joined DU - haven't changed my avatar once. I was ABB when Dean was the front-runner, ABB when Clark looked like the probable winner, and I'm ABB now. I've posted dozens of times trying to chill out unfair and uncivil attacks against all of the candidates, and to preserve a basis for amity and unity when we finally do have a nominee. I've worked closely toward these goals with some DUers who are now among the worst offenders, and that makes me very sad.

I know that DU isn't the real world, and that GD2004 isn't even DU. But some of us are players in the real campaigns, and the rest of us are at least contributing to the zeitgeist. Can't we see the advantages of amity and mutual respect? Can't we think ahead to November?

[w13rd0]

1. I've said for months that a compressed primary is a mistake...

...and that we benefit most by a lengthy dialogue and debate before settling on a nominee.

ON EDIT: I think the original thinking was that Bush was unbeatable, and a compressed primary would give them more time for "party building" in a throw away election cycle.

[The Blue Knight]

2. I like Kerry, I just have a few concerns with him:

- Special interest money.
- Voting for the war in Iraq
- Pro-occupation
- Pro-NAFTA
- Voted for No Child Left Behind
- Voted for the Patriot Act

====

But, all that aside, if he is the Democratic candidate come Convention time, then you better believe my ass will be out going door to door to get the word out.

[funky_bug]

3. That's why I love you guys

Kucinich supporters are the single best representation of their candidate on this board. They DON'T attack, the DON'T waffle, and they DON'T jump the bandwagon.

If supporters are any indication of the candidate they support, we could ALL take a lesson from the supporters of Kucinich.

[library_max]

6. Yep, they're a class act and so is their candidate.

Third time today I've said that.

[CabalBuster]

8. I won't unite behind Kerry ever....because:

1) Voted for IWR
2) Voted for No Child
3) Voted for Patriot Act
4) Is a demagogue
5) Skulls and Bones
6) Oligarch
7) Status Quo
8) Special Interest poster boy
9) (quite possibly) a sexual harasser of women ==at least

Shall I go on?

I am tired of this rethorical questions. We have said it over and over again. The worst thing about Kerry is HIS TRACK RECORD

[library_max]

14. So, what are your plans in the event that he gets the nomination?

I'm not going to argue with your list. This isn't the place for it. But does that mean that you would prefer to see Bush get four more years?

[dsc]

4. I have raised only legit issues

and will do so. It isn't my fault Kerry took the position he did on my marriage rights while (if true) he was having an affair with someone young enough to be his child. It isn't my fault he went on NPR and flirted with amending the Constitution. It isn't my fault Kerry has said all things to all people about the war. It isn't my fault his leading fundrainser funded the Osama ad, his staff got caught on tape push polling, and voted for NCLB. He did these things. They are one and all legit issues. I will raise them as long as Dean is in and maybe longer.

[library_max]

5. Now why would you think that I was talking to you?

Couldn't possibly be a guilty conscience, could it?

But while you're here, let me ask you - do you really think you're winning Dean converts this way? Or is it just hatred and revenge? "And maybe longer" leads me to think that it's hatred and revenge.

[dsc]

12. I lived in Mississippi

and complained about that philandering governor who took away my rights. I complained about Barr and Gingrich. Why should I accept that behavior from your candidate?

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. As an ABB Edwards supporter, thank you!

The 'ask no embarrasing questions and fall in line now for the sake of unity' posts by some Kerry supporters here are about to get on my last nerve!

I would also agree about the 'cheap shot artists' here, and believe that there is a difference between voicing legitimate concerns and taking drive-by postshots at Sen. Kerry.

[Straight Shooter]

9. "Is it just about hatred and revenge now"?

This is what is known as an inflammatory question.

I was thinking this morning that ardent supporters of a candidate tend to support that candidate because there is a form of identification, or bonding, with that candidate. I find it difficult to believe that kerry himself would accuse Dean supporters, or any other candidate's supporters, of operating out of a need to express "hatred and revenge."

"If so, where does that get you? Do you care so little about the party or the country that you'd deliberately sabotage our chances in November just for a little payback?"

There you have the classic "you're either with us or against us" argument. We understand most kerry supporters do not like Dean; that is one of the reasons they chose kerry. What we ask of you is that our continued support for Dean not be construed as an attack on kerry. If we want to raise issues about kerry, such issues are being raised because we sincerely believe he is not the best man to go against bush. If kerry supporters have contempt for Dean and yet believe that kerry has shown his worth by trouncing Dean, that is not proving the argument that kerry can trounce bush. You will have to admit that Dean is a worthy opponent before trouncing him wins any points on the political scoreboard.

My solace in finding myself mired in this bickering is the knowledge that DU is not the real world. We can squabble our little hearts out and, in the end, it won't change the final outcome.

Edit: I understand you're ABB, but I am also aware that most barbs being exchanged are between kerry and Dean supporters.

[library_max]

11. I said explicitly that you have every right to support your candidate.

I know it was a long post, but I wish you'd read all of it. There is a distinction between raising issues and indulging in cheap shots, although granted it is easier to see that distinction when the cheap shots are being aimed at one's own candidate. And hatred and revenge was only one of three possible motives I mentioned for the cheap shots. Obviously it's not the motive behind civil and fair-minded support of one's own candidate, or even civil and fair-minded criticism of other candidates.

[Straight Shooter]

13. Your wish was granted. I did read all of it.

I was addressing the major points which stood out.

[MajorFlaw]

10. Well said . . .

One of the reasons I spend too much time at DU is the mostly shared belief that bush lite is the most dangerous WMD facing us. While i have my preferences among the candidates and have sent $ to 3 of them, there isn't a candidate running or dropped out that I wouldn't gladly vote for over shrub. No soul searching necessary, whoever gets the Dem's nomination gets my vote.
I would hope that others recognize that getting rid of bush lite is much more important than the relatively minor differences between us; if we can retake the reigns of power, I have no doubt that as civilized people we can fairly resolve our internal issues. When I see a Democrat throwing slime at a fellow Dem, I can't help but think that the mudslinger doesn't understand or share my deep desire to remove the bush lite regime before any more damage is done.
We must get used to fighting side by side and back to back and the sooner we start the better we will be at it. Otherwise, 2004 may be the last semi legitimate election our country will ever see.

[dawn]

15. I'm ABB...in November. Not now.

I just don't like Kerry as much as I do Edwards or Kucinich. Sure, I'll vote for him when I have to, in November, to get rid of Bush. But he doesn't need my vote, or my support, right now.

The main reason I don't like him are because he seems soft on fair trade and pretty much the same as Bush as far as being in bed with the corporatocracy.

I'm a web administrator and have seen many of my colleagues' jobs go overseas. I know I can't do anything to stop it, but I don't want to give my primary vote to anyone who isn't for NAFTA reform.

Other than that, Kerry is OK. He doesn't inspire me, and puts me to sleep, but he's not Bush. So I am as ABB as the rest of you, for November.

[library_max]

16. That's fine. Thanks for posting and best of luck to you. /nt

[Old and In the Way]

17. I'll happily support any candidate that wins the nomination.

I don't understand why everyone can't make that simple statement of support. Well, I could speculate, but it would get me in trouble with the DU and/or the mods.

[stickdog]

18. It's all about ELECTABILITY.

Or in Kerry's case, the complete lack of it.

[library_max]

22. Yes, that's how you win primaries, by not being electable. /nt

[mlawson]

31. Um, most nominees win a lot of primaries. But that means nothing

in the general election in November. Primary voters are typically informed, motivated, political individuals. GE voters include a large portion who are not any of the above, but yet they vote, often on criteria we would think ridiculous, such as looks, personality, and possession of the "common touch". They are the voters our nominee MUST attract. Can Kerry do that, or would someone else do it better?

I mean this in no way as a 'detractor' to Kerry. I do not possess the 'common touch' myself...

[library_max]

35. I think it's hard to reconcile the elite primary voters theory

with the record large primary turnouts we've been getting so far.

But anyway, it's easier to make an electability argument in favor of candidates who win primaries than candidates who don't. Or are we saying, "What do the actual voters know about electability?"

[arewethereyet]

19. Edwards supporter here, Kerry is a far weaker candidate than mine

platform is worse, integrity is worse and his only possible path to the White House is so restrictive as to be unattainable.

I want a winner and he's not it.

[Padraig18]

23. Dean supporter, and I agree with you!

Sen. Edwards would be a FAR MORe formidable candidate against *, IMO.

[library_max]

28. The platform won't be set exclusively by the nominee.

Regarding "path to the White House," much depends on VP selection, no matter who gets the nomination.

How is any candidate going to be a "winner" if we insist on maligning each others' candidates' integrity? I could now say something nasty about Edwards, and you could say something else nasty about Kerry, and where would that get either us or our candidates?

I'm not saying, "support Kerry," I'm saying keep it clean and constructive.

[arewethereyet]

30. path to the White House is restricted regardless of VP

Kerry cannot and will not win the south. I live here and I know how people here think. It doesn't matter who the VP is. Thats restrictive and unncesarrily so.

Don't want to get into integrity ? Fine, withdrawn. The rest is more than sufficient to draw a clear line.

[library_max]

32. I live in the South too,

along with tens of millions of other voters. I guess I don't know a large enough percentage personally to think that I know how they all think.

So, "path to the White House" a WAG, no platform yet, withdrawing the "integrity" smear. What was that other point again?

[polpilot]

33. I agree. Kerry can't win with Clark..with Edwards...with anyone. Kerry

can't be the vp. He's too well known and his positions are too pro-war DLC establishment. It's too late for him.

Dean '04...

[zoeyfong]

20. I'm thinking a lot farther ahead than November, that's why i'm not ABB.

It is time for this party to stop being short-sighted and reflexively going for ABTR (anybody but the republican). This might come as a shock to some people, but democrats don't walk on water; the country is aware of this, thus dems, who used to be solid majority of america's electorate, are now tied with republicans. It is really time to start showing america that the democratic party stands for something other than getting itself in power.

[library_max]

21. We can show that the Democratic Party stands for NOT getting into power.

That'll impress everybody. And so what if we leave all the actual decision-making up to the Republicans? I mean, what's the worst thing that could happen?

Because that's what WILL happen. Bank on it.

Politics is about winning elections. You can't get any portion of your agenda enacted unless you get people in office who are at least sympathetic toward your views. Whatever you want to "stand for," do you really believe that it'll have a better chance of happening with Bush, Cheney, Bush III, etc. than with Democrats in office?

[eileen_d]

24. LOL, good point!

"That'll impress everybody." :D

[library_max]

29. Thanks. /nt

[polpilot]

34. 10 years ago the demos wouldn't be running a pro-Iraqi War candidate in

the same circumstances as today. How much more republican-like can we be. What do democrats 'stand for'? Nafta...war waging??

[library_max]

36. Ten years ago, Bill Clinton was President of the United States.

He was a Democrat, if memory serves, and he has come out in favor of the Iraq war. Which is more than John Kerry has done, by the way. The IWR does not equal invasion, no matter how many posts try to pretend that it does.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. I am a Kerry supporter.

There's no rush on my part. I have never called for a nominee to quit. I have in the past supported Dean with posts acknowledging the contribution he did make and can see the good in all the candidates for what they brought to the party, the primaries and how those various aspects of participation will form our ultimate platform this year.

Genuine criticisms are treated with regard, ad hominem rumor mongering internet smut is treated in kind.

I can relate to being on the losing end...Kerry was before he got started.

For my DU friends who have supported other candidates, I have tried my best to be thoughtful but when the tables turned, I did NOT expect the attacks to be so unfounded nor unreasonable.(Skull and Bones, comparisons to Republicans with one of the most liberal records in the senate on traditional democratic issues etc.)

To me, whether the candidate is Dean, Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Kerry or any of the candidates that participated before for the dem nomination (with the exception of La Rouche, pick on him all you want)I have tried to focus any conversation on the actual issues and their strengths and weaknesses.

I still wish Dean the best and appreciate what he did do insofar as getting going early and stepping out...it remains to be seen if it will be helpful in the longrun and that depends SOLELY on him.

[Capn Sunshine]

26. I'm convinced Kerry is the exact wrong candidate for us to run

and have been ever since he was the front runner in 1/03. He's everything the republicans are convinced they can beat.

This is what caused me to look elsewhere , ultimately finding Howard Dean

[library_max]

27. I have no problem with you supporting Howard Dean.

Support whoever you want. My objection is to the gouging and crotch-kicking that's been going on. It's destructive to our chances in November no matter which candidate you support and no matter which of them ends up being the nominee. Can we agree on that?

[library_max]

37. One last kick.

:kick: