Destructive candidate bashing

[For PaisAn]

All this candidate attacking is self destructive. The Republicans will use it against whoever gets the Democratic nomination. They will run ads showing everything negative that the other candidates said about the nominee. I can just hear them now. This will all backfire. Sharpton kept warning everyone during the debates.

Here are some suggestions for us to rise above this and make wise choices. Honest critique and comments welcome but please no flaming. Let’s make this thread civilized and productive.

For us, this should not be a contest to gloat about how well your/my candidate is doing or that your candidate is better than mine.

IMO, there are 3 things that matter in the decision of who to support, in this order:
1) Who can beat Bush
2) Who has a realistic chance to win the nomination
3) Can I live with this candidate and is he better than Bush.
The candidate you support must meet all 3 criteria.

Look, the entire process is corrupt, the media, Bush & Co., etc. Work within these facts. Reality must trump idealism or we're finished.

Example;
Kucinich is my ideal candidate but he only meets criteria #3. It pains me to say that he is out. This country is just not evolved enough for him yet.

Also, any candidate that the repugs and the media can paint as weak on defense is in deep trouble against Bush the chickenhawk. I know it's BS but it will play out that way. They have instilled fear in the American public and they won't stop using that tactic any time soon.

The only 2 candidates that meet all three criteria are Clark and Kerry and criteria #2 is starting to look doubtful for Kerry.

I've reevaluated my choices many times before coming to this. My bet is on Clark as our best chance.

Whoever you decide to choose, make it a wise choice based on reality and excluding all ego.
Instead of being so locked into "your" candidate, start fresh and look at all the candidates as if for the first time. Our loyalty should lie in really taking our country back, not in any particular candidate. They're all better than Bush. Do we want to win? Let's give ourselves the best chance even if the candidate might not have been our top choice. It can't be about comparing candidates. With the state of our nation and of the world it's too late for that. It MUST be about beating Bush. It's us against them and we must win

[The Zanti Regent]

1. Please remember--the TARGETS are BUSH and DE LAY!

We cannot afford to forget that!

[For PaisAn]

3. agree 100%

That was my point exactly.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. i just heard ten minutes of limbaugh's show

he wasn't there but whoever it the host was, he was having a grand ole time, yucking it up about dean's sealed records.

this is just the beginning. what should have been a great issue for us is now mute because dean is defending the same right to private meetings that cheney is.

if dean is not our candidate, we get that issue back and with it, the whole panoply of bush secrecy with it.

i could go on and on. we have 60 days tops, to stop this train wreck and i will not set any weapon aside.



oh my god...limbaugh is in our spell checker and it wants me to accord him respect by capitalizing the L,,,screw that.

[markm]

2. Let's use the system

Let's not help Bush by nominating Dean. Clark must win.

[For PaisAn]

6. I hope

people recognize the value in a Clark candicacy. Dean supporters have good reasons to support him but I'd love to see them give Clark a second (or first)look. Please, that will never happen by calling Dean a loser.

[isbister]

9. Re: Let's use the system

I am deeply concerned about a Democratic Presidential Nominee that voted for Reagan. I like Clark but that fact and his inexperience alone are enough for me not to choose him (there are other reasons as well)

I think Dean will get trounced but Clark will get...what's worse than trounced... If we were just looking at bush vs. Clark it'd be the other way around but its the bush team and these folks got the goof-off into the White House... they are the greatest political machine the world has known (to date).

Politics today is not something where someone can begin at the top, I believe our candidate must know Washington politics.

[For PaisAn]

20. Perhaps

You may very well be correct about them trouncing Clark's "inexperience". I do think all candidates are vulnerable to the Bush machine and the media.

As for his voting for Reagan as a reason for elimination...Gee, I was one of the ignorant people who voted for Reagan and Bush the elder (his first run). I am now a flaming liberal. People grow and learn. Clark being in the military at the time, maybe it was a given to vote Republican. I give him a lot of credit for being honest and admitting it, it would have been so much easier to lie.

BTW, posting this thread was not intended to be a Clark promotion. I don't pretend to think Clark has the most experience. We have a great bunch of candidates to choose from and they will all surrond themselves with people who compliment their possible weak spots. My main focus is who can beat Bush.

[isbister]

40. Re: Perhaps

As for his voting for Reagan as a reason for elimination...Gee, I was one of the ignorant people who voted for Reagan and Bush the elder (his first run). I am now a flaming liberal. People grow and learn.

I understand that and I like Clark but am not sure he's ready for next fall. I also think his past support might allow the republicans to have Clark spend a too much time answering what he likes about them.

If I was given a choice to vote between you and a similar candidate I liked, who fought against the republicans, I would choose the person that was fighting against them. Sorry, a politician's past history is important to me because I tend to look at political promises with a jaundiced eye.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi markm!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[drfemoe]

38. The system

Which system is the one that would make sure Clark wins and Dean loses? Please explain what 'system' you are urging us to use?

[drfemoe]

4. Defense

Also, any candidate that the repugs and the media can paint as weak on defense is in deep trouble against Bush the chickenhawk.

I don't see how anyone could be weaker on 'defense' than *. A failed war general is certainly not a contender in my book.

[For PaisAn]

8. Lost cause I guess

"I don't see how anyone could be weaker on 'defense' than *."
- are you referring to Bush? Of course none of the candidates are weaker than him on defense but that's not how the media paints Bush. He's promoted as a wartime "president". Many Americans buy into this crap and that's what we're up against.

"A failed war general is certainly not a contender in my book."
- Wes Clark is a failed war general in your book?! I can see from your choice of words that you intend to continue the bashing. Nowhere in my post did I criticize any of the candidates. I just offered my opinion on who had the best chance to win. All of the candidates are intelligent, qualified and have something to offer. It would have been good to have a positive thread going but I guess some things are just a lost cause.

[drfemoe]

12. The media's brush

Yes, while the media (including Wes Clark of CNN) were painting * as a war hero so he could wage illegal war, one Democrat stood up. Howard Dean. Any claims that he is weak on defense or has no ability to take on * is pure folly.

Kosovo is a failure. google "Kosovo" . click first link.

[For PaisAn]

21. misunderstood

I did not say Dean WAS weak on defense. I said the media and BushCo will paint him as such and I believe the masses will buy it. Again, this is just my opinion.

I can see all the open minds around here, it's staggering.

[dweller]

14. 'a lost cause'

funny, you made the pain to point out you aren't bashing a candidate, but in your original post specifically pointed out that 'this country' is not evolved enough yet for DK as a President.

I for one have all the confidence that Dennis Kucinich has evolved, and his followers have also, to realize his eventual nomination and election is just what this country needs to survive the oncoming new paradigm this world is moving into even against the will of those who neither accept it or even recognize it.

but, funny you know, evolution was never known to be painless. Those that can't grow, just never know.

dp

[redqueen]

24. Yeah I thought that was ironic as well

No destructive bashing, but apparently just flatly stating, before a single vote is cast, that the person someone supposedly agrees with more is simply 'unelectable'. But that's not bashing, that's just stating a fact.

Now, if I were to point out another candidate's praise of deregulation, or insistence that Depleted Uranium is not a health hazard, or some other such perceived weakness... one is led to believe that that would be 'destructive bashing'.

Whatever. :eyes:

[For PaisAn]

28. Please...

I've been high on Kucinich since February of 2002. Check the archives. In spring of 2002 I posted his "A Prayer for America" before many of you ever even heard of him. It's not bashing to be realistic about this. The American public are too ignorant to realize what a gift he is.
I never said Clark or any other candidate was better than Kucinich. They're not. If you believe Kucinch can win the nomination and can beat Bush then vote for him. For me it's just not a realistic hope.
We need to beat Bush and my decision will be based on that.

[redqueen]

33. Well then what is bashing, to you?

Is discussing clark's enthusiastic support of using depleted uranium bashing?

Is discussing dean's many waffles and republican-lite record bashing?

Honestly all this whining about 'bashing' makes me realize why dean calls liberals 'weepy'. If this is what liberals these days act like then maybe he has a point.

[madfloridian]

5. Clark is not our only alternative.

You guys would not let up. You have carried it so far we did nothing but wait for the next wave of posts going after. It has been good practice, but enough is enough.

[For PaisAn]

7. ??

I never said Clark was our only alternative. I said he was my choice and explained my thought process. That process would quite possibly lead others to different candidates. If you feel someone else is the best choice to beat Bush then that is your decision. There was no criticism directed at you or anyone else other than that the bashing needs to stop and that reality must trump idealism. I merely asked people to consider make intelligent choices based in reality. I rarely post here so please don't lump me in with "you guys".

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. The ONLY candidate who really meets your own three criteria

...is Howard Dean. Kerry is toast, and Clark is a sitting duck for the Rove media machine with both his inexperience and his own, well documented praise for the current Fraudministration.

[For PaisAn]

22. Hope so

I have my doubts that Dean can beat Bush. Hope I'm wrong. Dean is just as much a sitting duck as the others.

[bain_sidhe]

11. Agreed... and we should all remove the word

"unelectable" from our vocabularies. Let's start from the position that ALL of our candidates are "electable," given the right set of circumstances. The question then becomes, what are the circumstances under which our candidate could be elected, and how much control do we have over those circumstances? And then, which candidate does best under circumstances we can control?

[bearfartinthewoods]

32. if you lay out any sort of logical strategy that shows CMB, AS or DK

winning then i promise to never say they can't win again.

until then, i will continue to say certain candidates cannot win.

reality really is power, you know. it's like a strong flashlight. when we hold it, it guides us away from dead ends.

[bain_sidhe]

34. "given the right circumstances"

is the key here... As well as acknowledging that there are circumstances we *can* control vs those we can't.

We can't make the country more liberal right now. We can't make the country less bigoted right now. So know GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES we CAN'T CONTROL, DK CMB and AS can't win.

But GIVEN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES, they could.

It's not a matter of denying reality, it's a matter of changing the framework for the discussion of candidates.

Who is your candidate? What circumstances are required for him to win? What can he do to control those circumstances, if anything?

[isbister]

13. Re: Destructive candidate bashing

#1 I do not believe you're giving the republicans the proper credit, this candidate bashing reveals nothing they would not have thought of.

#2 You appear to discount Kerry because of some polls. The pollsters have been very wrong in recent years and I'd bet they'll be wrong this time too.

#3 For me, Clark does not pass number one or two primarily because of his inexperience in politics. It has sorely shown already and the republican machine will tear him apart... especially where he supported the republican way of life in the past and may or may not now.

I believe Sen. Kerry made a great point when he said that he was in the Senate fighting against Reagan's policies while Clark was voting for Reagan. That may be considered attacking but I don't think so because I was supporting Kerry while he was fighting against Reagan.

[For PaisAn]

25. clarification

True, the republicans would be bashing anyway but it will be far more damaging now that they can show, in ads, the faces and words of fellow Democratic primary candidates bashing the eventual Democratic presidential candidate.

I don't discount Kerry because of polls, polls are BS. My issue with Kerry is that he has not vigorously pursued clarifying his IWR vote. I've had many conversations with his campaign people and they just don't get it. This is the defining issue for Kerry. It will make or break him. It's a shame that his progressive history may get buried under the Iraq issue.

Clark may very well get trounced by Republicans as "inexperienced". All the candidates will get trounced on something. We have to decide which candidates can best withstand the trouncing and have enough positives to outweigh the negatives in the view of the majority of voting Americans.

That candidate will be a personal decision for each of us. I'm not trying to influence or convince anyone of anything. I just had some
suggestions on a possible way of approaching the decision making process.

Your response was intelligent and was in no way an attack and I appreciate that.

[oasis]

15. (1)bashing is unavoidable. (2) not all bashing is bashing (n/t)

[mouse7]

16. Enough... ALL NINE Can Win

If the news we are hearing that Bush plans to get the draft going on 6/15/05 breaks, every single one of our possible nominees would most likely crush Dumbya. Then the issue becomes width of coattails vs. how progressive we want the next president to be.

Enough of this, "(your name here) CANNOT WIN!" threads. There's a good chance the news could break that could ensure that none of them can lose.

Hell, we may have already gotten that news. Cheeseburger anyone? No? How come?

[Brian_Expat]

17. Amen Brother!

:thumbsup:

[For PaisAn]

26. What?

Where did I say "your" candidate can't win about any of the candidates? I did express my doubts about Kucinich's chances and he would be my hands down first choice. Like it or not, a large number of voting Americans are morons. I am entitled to an opinion or else what's the point of having a 2004 Primary section at all. Should we require only those who support a particular candidate to weigh in on a post about that candidate? This thread was not about any particular candidate but rather some suggestions for the decision making process. Everyone can take them or leave them or offer other suggestions.

IMO, the public will not react to the Draft until after it happens, as in after the election.

[Padraig18]

19. Kick for a worthy post!

We may disagree on our choices, but the post is excellent. :)

[For PaisAn]

30. Thank you

I fear my intentions have been misunderstood by many. I spent a lot of time trying to word my post clearly, but perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough.

[Padraig18]

31. You did just fine.

Those who are looking for a fight will find one, regardless; trust me on this--I'm Irish! *grin* ;)

[Atlant]

27. You understand that we all *DO* do this, right?

> I've reevaluated my choices many times before coming to this.
> My bet is on Clark as our best chance.

You understand that we all DO do this, right?
It's just that, for many of us, the answer continues to
keep coming up as "Howard Dean".

(As an example of the fact that I actually continue to
evaluate my position, I was a Kerry supporter before
his vote on the IWR. But several times on several issues,
he whispered soothing words in my ear and then voted
against my positions. The IWR vote was the straw that
broke the deal for me.)

Atlant

[For PaisAn]

29. No

You may have had an open mind but it appears many others have not and do not have an open mind. I just hope everyone chooses based on who they believe can beat Bush. He's the enemy here. I will support whoever gets the nomination.

[drfemoe]

35. Open Mind

Instead of calling a cease fire on the candidates, how about we stick to the candidates and lay off their respective supporters?

Let's not assume other DUers haven't given this issue considerable thought. Some say they are still undecided. They are still considering the options. Others of us have done our own extensive research on all the candidates and made our choice. That doesn't mean we can't think straight, drink kool-aid, aren't being realistic, are close minded, or any other taint which are all too often the accusations being made.

You may have had an open mind but it appears many others have not and do not have an open mind.

If my guess is right, some of the rules which have been implemented have tried to address this situation. The rules are clear that we may freely question any and all the candidates until the Democratic Party has announced the nominee. Would it be a good thing if we could refrain from calling other DU members' mental abilities, et al into question while we do that?

[For PaisAn]

36. agreed

n/t

[drfemoe]

37. it's a start

:hi:

[Lil Kim]

39. Always remember

other may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.

[shivaji]

41. Clark will never be the POTUS

He has too many negatives. Ten times more years as republican than dem. Major gaffes such as "Let software jobs fo to India" comment.
Never ran for any election in his entire life. No endorsements from even retired generals after spending a lifetime in military. And now he wants to go for the top post? The Bush machine will chew him up and spit him out.

Gephardt has a much better chance of beating Bush. He has major labor support. He has oodles of political experience. Don't expect Gep to make a single gaffe. He is definately for the common man, has incredible pro-working man record in congress.

But Dean has the best chance of beating Bush. This man is energy in motion. Ran for six elections, WON THEM ALL. He can think on his feet, seldom uses prepared speeches. Unlike Clark who drones on and on when asked a question, Dean's audiences seem to be energized and stimulated. His medical background is huge plus in designing a national health care system.