All of this infighting in GD-Politics of whose candidate is better is reminiscent of 2004

[Catherine Vincent]

I remember it well. All the Kerry supporters were fighting with the Clark supporters who were fighting with the Dean supporters. And vice versa. And it was really bad after the Dean scream. And now we're fighting once again on who is the better candidate. But I know in the end, whomever wins the nomination will get everyone's support!

(But some of you anti-Clinton posters are still getting on my nerves) :)

[Demit]

1. WHOever wins the nomination.

Subject of the verb wins. :):):)

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Thanks.

I didn't know if it was correct or not, but I just wanted to use it since I rarely get a chance to. :)

[sandnsea]

2. Former Dean supporters

are getting on my nerves. How they could rant and rave about the DC cockroaches and change in 2003, then line up behind Hillary now... :crazy:

[wyldwolf]

3. funny. An article last week showed many Dean supporters lining up behind Obama

[sandnsea]

8. Some support Edwards too

What's that got to do with any of them supporting the one who destroyed the Dean campaign?

[wyldwolf]

12. read your own post #2 and tell me.

[sandnsea]

14. How about you make sense

think you could try that for a change.

[wyldwolf]

15. Following a threaded conversation is getting so passe with the hip "progressive" set

Sandnsea: Former Dean supporters are getting on my nerves. How they could rant and rave about the DC cockroaches and change in 2003, then line up behind Hillary now..

wyldwolf: funny. An article last week showed many Dean supporters lining up behind Obama.

sandnsea: Some support Edwards too. What's that got to do with any of them supporting the one who destroyed the Dean campaign?

(here's where you tripped and fell of the reality express. Are you saying Hillary destroyed the Dean campaign? And did you not understand me when I said Dean supporters are lining up behind Obama? I'll expand that. Dean supporters are lining up behind Obama in big numbers. This isn't my opinion but rather a conclusion arrived at through polling.

[sandnsea]

16. And the ones who support Hillary

are the ones who get on my nerves.

Sorry such clear statements confuse you.

[wyldwolf]

17. So are you going to PROVE Hillary destroyed the Dean campaign?

Sorry reality confuses you.

[sandnsea]

19. Who else has the media power

it's self-evident to anybody who wants to open their eyes and see.

[wyldwolf]

20. so no, you have no proof. "It should be self evident." LOL! LOL!

[sandnsea]

24. Yes I have a confession

:crazy:

Do you deny Dean was destroyed in the media the weeks before Iowa, most specifically right after Gore endorsed him? Are you really in such a state of denial that you can't connect the dots? They aren't even dots, they're neon flashing signs. I hope you make your income from investments and aren't hoping for any economic benefit from Hillary, because it isn't going to be coming.

[wyldwolf]

25. So you STILL have no proof, just looking for a scapegoat.

Do you deny Dean was destroyed in the media the weeks before Iowa, most specifically right after Gore endorsed him?

Dean got the treatment frontrunners often get. His case was no different than the way Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore were savaged in the media. The difference, it appears, was his inability to combat it.

[sandnsea]

26. Right, just like the treatment

Hillary gets. :eyes:

The Clintons learned the way to get the media off your ass is to become a corporate toadie.

[wyldwolf]

32. trying to change the subject? C'mon. PROVE Hillary derailed Dean

[sampsonblk]

10. Easy answers

Because there aren't any big ideas at stake in this election, like there were in 2004. We had everything to lose in 2004, and we lost it - badly. Time to move on from that.

Its apparent that we are in great shape this time around, as we were in 2004. But this time its really just about following through and winning the thing. We'll have the house, senate and white house if we just follow through and win.

[sandnsea]

13. There are no big ideas at stake???

We don't have anything to lose?

What in the hell are you talking about.

[sampsonblk]

18. Don't get so excited

Either one of these Dem candidates will be fine. No huge differences between them, and certainly no profiles in courage either. One of them is going to be president. Bush will be gone.

In 2004, we were fighting to keep Bush from screwing everything up. Well he did it anyway. And now he's done.

[sandnsea]

23. Not true at all

Nice Clintonian spin, but there's a huge difference between them. Edwards has been supporting Iraq withdrawal since 2005. Dodd has been as relentless on habeas corpus as Biden has on finding a solution on Iraq. Hillary has had her finger in the air, or more accurately, in the wallet of the corporate elites.

This has never been just a fight against George Bush. If you truly believe that, I suggest you read more, A LOT more.

[sampsonblk]

27. Oh come on!

Edwards has been supporting withdrawal since when?? AFTER the last election when he screwed us. Why wasn't he for withdrawal when it mattered?

During the last cycle he was the main guy using Bush's terms, and forcing others to do the same or suffer the consequences.

There's not one profile in courage left in this race. The emergency for our democracy was in 2004. That was the time to stand up and be counted. That was the time to say as a nation and as a party, that once we learned what Bush was up to, we refused to stand for it - that we'd rather go down in flames than to be a party to Bush's crimes and lies.

But in those days, none of these top-tier guys would stick their necks out. So now, its really just about winning, ok? We can't go back and regain all that was lost in 2004. That's done with. We just need to win this election.

[sandnsea]

28. That is completely untrue

HILLARY was the one blathering "stay the course" - not Kerry or Edwards in 2004. The reason the media had it so screwed up was because they reported the Dem policy from the point of view of the CLINTONS. Kerry opposed the war in Jan 2003, the night of the invasion, and consistently said he would not have gone to war. He laid out a plan to start pulling troops in 2005. I don't comment much on Edwards, but he has taken a much stronger stand than Hillary in the last few years.

Have you just forgotten who gave Bush a pass on the yellowcake and the war lies?

We won't be winning anything with Hillary. What's worse, if we elect a Democrat who doesn't make any significant changes, we'll never have credibility to go to the American people for support again. Half the country doesn't vote already, they're already left behind. Hillary has no solutions for them. What do you think is going to happen when those numbers get larger, and they will. Getting this wrong could lead to such a disenfranchisement that revolt becomes the only answer.

This is more serious than 2004. Hillary will be a disastrous choice for those who know the working people of the entire world need a bold change.

[sampsonblk]

29. Let's agree to disagree

We aren't going to see eye to eye on this one. I maintain that the most important election of this generation was 2004. We failed to forcefully oppose the things we aready knew Bush was doing. Its kinda hard now to elect a Dam who can change everything when they've spent almost 4 years helping legalize it, or at least turning a blind eye.

Bush should have been impeached. Not a one of these top-tier candidates would even speak the word. That is shameful.

[sandnsea]

30. Because of Hillary

She supported the Iraq war policy. She supports global expansionism. She supports this ridiculous tough talk on Iran. She opposed any talk of Bush war lies. She will implement a kinder and gentler raping of the planet, just like Bill did. It's better than the real politik of the neocons, but it's still the same thing. If you seriously believe Bush was bad for the country in 2004, then it makes no sense to support someone who is going to do the exact same things, except throwing a few crumbs to the poor like a mother keeping a 2 year old quiet with a lollipop.

[sampsonblk]

31. She is not going to do the exact same things

[Adelante]

4. In the rosy haze of time

This seems worse to me. Or maybe it's because I'm not decided on backing anyone and I have the luxury of looking on, I see ALL groups having representation in the looniness and the nastiness. It's hard for the sensible members of each candidate group to break through the noise.

[Cameron27]

9. Sometimes it's better not backing anyone,

it keeps your blood pressure normal. You're right about the looniness and nastiness on all sides, a few of them have replaced facts with name calling and really think they're supporting their candidate.

[incapsulated]

21. Oh, about a million times better

Last time, backing a candidate meant grinding my teeth anytime I came to DU. Heart rate would go up, steam out of the ears, I hated it.

Now, I'm just an observer. I get annoyed sometimes but nothing even close to 2004 when it was PERSONAL, lol.

[politicasista]

22. You're right

And your sanity will be spared too. All I can say was thank goodness I joined here after November 3, 2004.


Excellent post. :hi:






edit for spelling

[obnoxiousdrunk]

5. Well we

have another 13 weeks of this infighting.

[Forkboy]

7. Most of the Dems should win in the GE fairly easily.

This is just the round robin portion of the tourney.

[sampsonblk]

11. Yep, as long as they don't do something to blow it.

[Eurobabe]

33. Same old shit, different election cycle.