A Big Yellow Taxi came and took away our best man

[skjpm]

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?
Without Dean, it seems that the energy has gone out of the campaign. I like Edwards a lot, but he's not that different from Kerry--at least, not as radically a new choice as Dean. I'm afraid we're going back to mumbling about the war and the Patriot act, and that there won't be the fire, the real loathing of Bush that seemed so clear with Dean.

[meegbear]

1. Yep ...

Dean tore down paradise and put up a parking lot.

[HFishbine]

2. Paradise

What was the paradise in your metaphore? Did I miss it?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. An ethereal world in which all politicians say and do the same thing.

Regardless of party affiliation.




:shrug: Just a guess.

[HFishbine]

6. Oh, THAT paradise!

Yep, I guess Dean is guilty as charged.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Have you heard or read anything by Kerry in the last couple of weeks?

[skjpm]

5. I hadn't figured out the paradise part yet

I just thought those lines from the song were apropos.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

7. I agree

Like my grandma use to tell me "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it". Back to boredom it will go. A whole lot of the same old thing.

[Odallas]

9. My Grandma used to say...

"wish in one hand and shit in the other, then see which hand fills up first"!

[arwalden]

8. Hate and Anger Campaign Themes May Get The Base Fired Up...

but they don't win elections. In order to win elections you need to get the vote of the independents, centrists and moderate Republicans.

I have little confidence that Dean's one-trick-theme could have done that in the end.

-- Allen

[Nazgul35]

10. did you ever hear him speak...

because your response suggests that you hadn't....

It was clear from the beginning that Dean's message was one of hope and a better tomorrow....yes there were elements of anger....who wouldn't be pissed off at what this administration has destroyed? If you are not angry, you haven't been paying attention!

But to suggest that was all there was to the campaign is disengenuous at best....

And I don't know where you get the "hate" from....I never saw elements of that in the campaign...

As for appealling to independents, centrists and moderates....why do you think these groups have moved to the Dems over the last six months....politics as usual? Please!

Once the dems showed backbone...courtesy of the good doctor...everyone but the most hard core repugs begain to come over to our side....

One-trick-theme indeed! What was Edwards and Kerrys multi-theme before Dean other than sit down and shut up...we know what we are doing?

Let it go....your side won, the destroyed the one campaign that gave life back to the Dem Party...pat yourselves on the back.....

now figure out how you are going to win those indies, centrists and moderates with candidates who make watching paint dry exciting....

[arwalden]

12. Yes I Did Hear Him Speak... Often.

because your response suggests that you hadn't....

What exactly about my response suggests that? Just wondering.

It was clear from the beginning that Dean's message was one of hope and a better tomorrow....yes there were elements of anger....who wouldn't be pissed off at what this administration has destroyed? If you are not angry, you haven't been paying attention!

My personal anger at Bush has nothing to do with the reality that NOT EVERYONE is as angry as I am. Yet even the non-angy people in the center can be convinced to vote for the Democrat. I don't think that Dean was the man who could do that... not at this juncture... not considering the reality of the overall political mood and climate of the country as a whole.

But to suggest that was all there was to the campaign is disengenuous at best....

How would anyone read that in my post? How exactly did I "suggest that this was all there was to the campaign"? (Answer: I didn't.)--- Even the most ardent Dean supporter would have difficulty in denying that it was the centerpiece of his theme.

And I don't know where you get the "hate" from....I never saw elements of that in the campaign...

So sorry, I should have used the word "loathe" since that was the word used in the message I was replying to.

IN FACT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS:

---

skjpm (512 posts) Thu Feb-19-04 09:25 AM

I'm afraid we're going back to mumbling about the war and the Patriot act, and that there won't be the fire, the real loathing of Bush that seemed so clear with Dean.

---

Hmmm... isn't that interesting? Even Skjpm, a DEAN SUPPORTER, sees the "loathing of Bush". (In the interest of FAIRNESS, would it be safe for me to assume that a verbal tongue-lashing and admonition of Skjpm will be forthcoming as well?)

As for appealling to independents, centrists and moderates....why do you think these groups have moved to the Dems over the last six months....politics as usual? Please!

Have they? According to whom? Pollsters? Every poll that I recall seeing shows that to be the case only when Kerry or Edwards name is used, but not with Dean. (But we all know that polls are BS anyway.)

Once the dems showed backbone...courtesy of the good doctor...everyone but the most hard core repugs begain to come over to our side....

So where did his votes go? I guess he wasn't the right man at the right time after all. The party has spoken.

I think we're all in agreement that Dean had a positive and energizing influence on the party. He and his supporters should be proud of themselves. I know that I certainly am.

One-trick-theme indeed! What was Edwards and Kerrys multi-theme before Dean other than sit down and shut up...we know what we are doing?

I understand that a great many Dean supports are hypersensitive and tend to imagine insults where none exist. I do feel a bit of sympathy for the folks who blindly lash out at others for their "non-supportive" comments about Dean. For many ardent Dean supporters, even frank observations and comments are perceived as an insult. To these folks, anything less than glowing adoration of Dean is offensive.

I am not the enemy. There is no need for Dean supporters to treat me like one.

Let it go....your side won, the destroyed the one campaign that gave life back to the Dem Party...pat yourselves on the back.....

I thought we were on the same "side". Apparently not.

Obviously there are many people who have a two-dimensional perspective of the Democratic party. I think that they are largely responsible for their own dissatisfaction and anger. There's very little I can do to help folks who think like that. They will have to work out their own issues and deal with their own demons.

now figure out how you are going to win those indies, centrists and moderates with candidates who make watching paint dry exciting....

Apparently this is happening already. I'm not worried



Edit: typo

[Nazgul35]

15. well...were to begin...

I said: because your response suggests that you hadn't....

You said: What exactly about my response suggests that? Just wondering.

Perhaps it was the fact that you attributed "hate and anger" themes to his campaign....while I know that this runs well with the media and other Dem candidates who were attempting to paint the candidates as "angry" or worse...unstable, it is nothing more than a talking point used to unfairly characterize this particular candidate...

I said: It was clear from the beginning that Dean's message was one of hope and a better tomorrow....yes there were elements of anger....who wouldn't be pissed off at what this administration has destroyed? If you are not angry, you haven't been paying attention!

You said: My personal anger at Bush has nothing to do with the reality that NOT EVERYONE is as angry as I am. Yet even the non-angry people in the center can be convinced to vote for the Democrat. I don't think that Dean was the man who could do that... not at this juncture... not considering the reality of the overall political mood and climate of the country as a whole.

Well done....while ignoring my first point and focusing on the second, you have chosen to attribute to me a point that I did not make. What I was saying...as is clear from the paragraph above was that: 1) People who were angry have a right to be and 2) that the Dean campaign, while acknowledging said anger offered a viable alternative future that was positive and uplifting

Now I will stop with the quotes because I think most people find that annoying and respond directly to your post from now on:

As to you being disingenuous about the Dean campaign having nothing to offer but hate and anger....perhaps your usage of attributing to the campaign a message of hate and anger while finishing your post with the line about "one trick theme," please feel free to explain who I am improperly reading this thread...

Webster's dictionary would be the obvious place to start with regards to figuring out the difference between "Loath" and "Hate." You usage of "hate" says something about your feelings towards the governor...just as using the word "loath" says something about skjpm....he was suing it to describe people's feelings about Bush, you were using yours to describe your assessment of the Democratic candidate Dean....I wouldn't necessarily call those equivalent in terms of what should be a "verbal tongue-lashing and admonition" of people. It is about direction...not force...

Fix your time line...you can not compare what the polls are reporting for Dean now with what they were reporting for Dean in early Jan....and the results in Iowa and NH....but than I get confused, what with everyone attacking Dean as a centrist/lefty, a republican plot/democratic nightmare....perhaps you could help clarify once and for all what the definitive argument is on Dean, since so many here have taken to such great lengths to make themselves scholars of the primary system....here we have 10,000 pundits instead of a few hundred...

"Where did his votes go..." when did he have them and when did he lose them? I am always curious that people here seem to believe that any vote, either in polling data or actual votes cast are somehow put into a bank, that nothing can change to influence those votes....

Support for Dean was soft, just as it is soft for Kerry and if Edwards should win will be soft for him....voters are not signing legal contracts with the candidates....but I am glad to see that you do acknowledge that Dean (as well as Clark, Kucinich and Sharpton) have done a good job of showing the other candidates what it will take to win in Nov.

here I have to quote you again...sorry dear readers:

I understand that a great many Dean supports are hypersensitive and tend to imagine insults where none exist. I do feel a bit of sympathy for the folks who blindly lash out at others for their "non-supportive" comments about Dean. For many ardent Dean supporters, even frank observations and comments are perceived as an insult. To these folks, anything less than glowing adoration of Dean is offensive.

I am not the enemy. There is no need for Dean supporters to treat me like one.

Reread your post. You claim the campaign was about hate and anger than attribute this as the only thing it had to offer. Please explain how this was a well-reasoned argument and how it was mis-interpreted as an insult? I'm afraid the disingenuous word must come back at this point...

Perhaps you would first tell me what "side" you are talking about and than we could proceed from there. For clarification, there was a power struggle within the Dem party between those seeking to continue their influence over the party and those seeking to take control. I would argue...as I have before in numerous posts, that those in control of the Dem and Rep. parties are monied interests whose whole purpose is to facilitate their economic well-being at the expense of the majority of the American public....

Perhaps I am wrong and you fight on the sides of the angels, but to critique the grass-roots movement inspired by the Dean camp as people attracted to hate and anger would suggest otherwise...

And to clear things up so you can say that you didn't say this:

If Dean's campaign gave a message of "hate and anger" and this was the only message offered (one trick theme), than those who supported this campaign in either time, money or votes were either:

1) Uninformed or
2) Attracted to the message...

which was it?

[arwalden]

17. Oh Brother! Must We Do This AGAIN?

This is just a rehash of the original message. Same old, same old. Yawn!

No. I'm not being disingenuous. I really mean it! My criticism of Dean and his campaign has been totally sincere and frank. The repeated accusations (or characterization) of my being "disingenuous" is undeserved.

So... here's my same-old-same-old response. The voters rejected him. Voters of all stripes. They didn't think he had a winning message that could compete on the national scale in a general election against this particular president. "Blah-blah. Blah-blah-blah." We've heard it all before. This is getting tiresome.)

I stand by my belief that many of the grass-roots supporters of Dean continue to imagine every criticism of Dean as a personal attack on the supporters themselves. This is paranoid BULLSHIT! Those folks simply need to grow up and face the cold harsh reality of politics. That's how it goes folks... live and learn.

I stand by my belief that the centerpiece of his campaign was built on hatred of Bush. (FYI: Centerpiece is not a synonym for "only". I did not say that the "hate and anger" was his "only" message. Good fucking grief! It was his centerpiece, not his only.)

I fail to see the purpose of asking for an explanation or clarification when my earlier words were as clear as I could make them. If someone has difficulty in understanding then, then that is their problem, not mine. Any "explanation" that I could offer would simply be repeating myself.

This is particularly true when it comes to not my needing to re-explain my views about the hypersensitivity of many Dean supporters. I was very direct, no further clarification is needed.

>> Perhaps you would first tell me what "side" you are talking about and than we could proceed from there. For clarification, there was a power struggle within the Dem party between those seeking to continue their influence over the party and those seeking to take control. I would argue...as I have before in numerous posts, that those in control of the Dem and Rep. parties are monied interests whose whole purpose is to facilitate their economic well-being at the expense of the majority of the American public....<<

Horse. Dead. Whipped. --- This has been discussed. Nothing has changed.

Those who feel the need to hold a grudge and/or quit the party and/or not vote and/or vote Green/Independent... should DO SO. Let go and move on. The constant whining and belly-aching from that crowd is tiresome. I understand that 'misery-loves-company' and even though I have no personal delight or joy in their candidate's downfall, I will not be drawn into their pity-party. There are more important things at hand without having to deal with that as well.

Regarding the closing question. First of all, I disagree with the premise of the question. It's based on the premise that (supposedly) I believe Dean's campaign was based only on "hate and anger". Well that's wrong. That's not what I believe.

However, if we consider Dean's message as a whole (not just the centerpiece) I'm guessing that MOST people were "attracted to the message". However, I'm also confident that a smaller minority may have been "misinformed" (to use the two choices provided). I don't think that many moderate Republicans were attracted to his message and moved to donate anything. Certainly they wouldn't vote for him.

And now we've come full-circle. What's attractive and motivating to the hard-core Democrats, and what's most attractive to the people who hate Bush the most is CLEARLY not the message that gets votes from the center and from moderate Republicans.

Even Dean was smart enough to figure that out. Dean is moving on and looking forward. Why aren't many of his supporters?

-- Allen

P.S. Saving the best for last:

>> Webster's dictionary would be the obvious place to start with regards to figuring out the difference between "Loath" and "Hate." You usage of "hate" says something about your feelings toward the governor...just as using the word "loath" says something about skjpm....he was suing it to describe people's feelings about Bush, you were using yours to describe your assessment of the Democratic candidate Dean....I wouldn't necessarily call those equivalent in terms of what should be a "verbal tongue-lashing and admonition" of people. It is about direction...not force...<<

Good grief! What the HELL is that about? Hate/loathe, loathe/hate, tomayto/tomahto... what the fuck does it matter?

I STILL smell a double-standard... and it stinks. People will often nitpick the subtle differences between synonymous words to divert attention. I cannot force those people to acknowledge the hypocrisy, all I can do is point it out.

>> "...you were using yours (hate) to describe your assessment of the Democratic candidate Dean" <<

BULLSHIT! Absolute nonsense. Intelligent readers will be able to figure this out on their own... but I didn't want anyone to think that those words had gone unnoticed by me. I saw them... and they are BULLSHIT!

(Someone help me. Have I passed into some sort of alternate universe where black is white and up is down and day is night and criticism is "hate"? This is simply remarkable.)

The pettiness and scorn and angry words that others choose to heap upon me are undeserved.

P.P.S. I think I see a pattern developing here. I have little time to engage in a "discussion" that's little more than a series of contradictions. While some folks may find it entertaining, I find it repetitive and tedious. If anyone finds that to be enjoyable... then I encourage them to knock themselves out. I'm done here... this conversation will only continue if someone who actually CARES can be found... and that's not me.

You may now have the last word.

[intheozone]

11. Dean's campaign WAS NOT about hate and anger!

You must not have been paying attention to what he said and how he said it!

[arwalden]

13. See My Reply Above (#12)

This should address some of your concerns.

-- Allen

[otohara]

14. Dean & Gore

my hero's

[skjpm]

16. I liked the loathing and anger Dean made visible

OK, he talked about hope and faith, yada yada yada, but it was nice to really show my anger and loathing towards Bush and think that a candidate shared those feelings. I think we could run a campaign on hatred and anger, frankly. But I think we at least need that element in the campaign somewhere, and without Dean, I think we've lost it. I just don't think Edwards, the guy I like, or Kerry, is really going to go after Bush with the energy that Dean would.