On the draft, Obama in '08, Kucinich, and other matters...

[WilliamPitt]

The draft

The idea of a return of the draft has been a concern around here for several days, and for good reason. Understand, however, that barring some massive calamity - an invasion of flesh-eating aliens or the Earth crashing into the sun - there will be no draft. Not because there aren't politicians who want it, but because the military simply will not stand for it.

The military nowadays is a hell of a lot different from the one we had the last time there was a draft. Back then, it took about eight weeks or so of boot camp to "make" a soldier. Today, because of the new training, tactics and equipment, it takes months (if not years) to make a soldier. An influx of green, raw, non-volunteer recruits would absolutely shatter the system and wreck virtually every branch of the service.

The brass know this, and want no part of it, and will not stand for it. Rangel knows this, too, I am sure, which is why his call for a draft was almost certainly political posturing designed to highlight the Iraq situation and the "rich man's war, poor man's fight" phenomenon. There will be no draft.

Obama

Obama in '08 feels, to me, like a new Senator thinking about running for Vice-President. This is incredibly common: a lot of the candidates in any general election aren't actually running for the Oval Office, because they know they won't get it, but want to position themselves for either the VP spot or a cabinet position. I get the sense that this may be the drift of Obama's thinking; he hasn't been around long enough, perhaps, to seriously consider the top spot, but as VP would be well-positioned to take the reins after someone else's term.

Given this assumption, savor the flavor: Edwards/Obama, Gore/Obama, Clark/Obama, Boxer/Obama, Clinton/Obama, etc. He would be fantastic on any campaign trail as the second voice on the ticket, I think.

Dennis

The announcement that Dennis Kucinich will run for President in '08 has been met with a great chorus of approving voices here. It will be very important to have a voice and a perspective like his in the race - "Hi, my name's Dennis, and I was totally right about the war all the way back in 2002" - but I have one caveat to offer that I hope you decide to take very seriously.

I worked for a litle while as the Kucinich Press Secretary during the '04 run, as some of you might recall. Thanks to a variety of outside and internal circumstances, combined with my own utter lack of experience and what has to be called my rank incompetence in a position I had no grounding for, I am pretty sure you can pen me into The Book as the Worst National Campaign Press Secretary In The History Of All Known Universes.

Therefore, I will put this very simply: watch the Kucinich campaign closely. If they start hiring people like me on as main staffers, be very, very, very concerned. No matter how solid a candidate may be, a campaign can die in the cradle if the staffers don't know what they are doing. If these kind of hires start happening, you are going have to wonder what the point of the exercise is, because winning anything won't be on the menu. Period.

'Nuff said. Cheers.

[QuestionAll...]

1. ?

so you admit you didn't know what you were doing while K's press secretary, and somehow that should quell support for Kucinich here?

huh?

[WilliamPitt]

5. Well, think about it

Say you're running a national campaign for high office. Would you hire someone who had no experience in the job?

I'm not worried about how I look in this, because I don't matter. But if someone is running for essentially the office of national administrator, the ability to pick staff is kind of important.

[QuestionAll...]

7. well you must have done some kind of convincing...

on your resume or otherwise.

sorry, but I truly don't understand how your shortcomings for that job back then, reflects on Anything Kucinich says today.

[WilliamPitt]

9. It's a long story

that I'm not getting into right now.

But if the idea that competence in picking competent staff isn't an important skill set for a candidate or an administrator doesn't resonate with you, probably nothing else I say will convince you.

[QuestionAll...]

13. sounds more like your personal story that you've wrapped K in with.

what resonates with me is what Kucinich has been saying all along. That's What Matters.
not some sideshow of what you consider a dangerous weakness of his (and you being the weakest link!) that I consider rather petty and distractive, actually.

but I won't be convincing you, either.

[Radical Activist]

42. The problem is that Will Pitt isn't the only example.

He's probably being too nice to point out that Kucinich's second campaign manager had zero campaign experience when she was hired. Neither did Kucinich's first campaign manager. He had at least half a dozen national field directors rotate through, several press secretaries, and constant staff turnover in other positions. It wasn't a Will Pitt problem. It was a Dennis Kucinich problem. There were some people Kucinich hired with campaign experience but they were usually fired or quit out of frustration.

[KoKo]

19. Didn't it have something to do with Kucinich having little money but someone

on his staff liking what you wrote with Scott Ritter...about us not going into Iraq?

He or his staff made a decision to go with a young guy with good ideas who seemed at that time to support what Kooch was doing.

It might not have been a good match...but hey...we all make some mistakes we learn from ...and not every job is Golden..as you know...but one learns something from every one of those jobs...

:shrug:

[eridani]

25. The lack of money meant that everyone on the campaign was an amateur

You probably did your best, and that was all the campaign could afford. I was a rank amateur myself, though not paid staff. Not really an adequate test of hiring skills, and a reflection of the fact that few progressives can raise adequate money in national races precisely because of what they stand for. Probably why Feingold decided to give it a pass this time.

Even so, if this current run turns out to be similar to 2004, it will have given a lot more experience to more people who will stay involved locally as I and so many others have. Lots more progressives have street cred in local Dem organizations due to the Kucinich (and let's be fair--Dean probably even more so) campaigns. I will be able to save him $8K right off the bat, since I (and some other former newbies) don't intend to let the state party charge us that for the walking lists and give the same info for less or for free to other candidates.

We all know more this time, and can at least push politics more in his general direction.

[skipos]

2. Why do you feel you were bad at it? nt

[WilliamPitt]

6. No experience.

Pretty simple. I'd never done it before, and the heat of a campaign is a crappy time for on-the-job training.

[The Count]

3. I'm hoping Dennis hires some of the Lamont people and makes a big splash

he cannot win anything as our votes are irrelevant in the nomination. it's a party machine thingy and he doesn't have the connections.
I am hoping he makes a big enough impact on the dialogue so the MSM will HAVE to cover SOME of it.
Other than that, we won't have good candidates. We'll have Hillary. And probably Obama as VP as he seems connected enough.

[WI_DEM]

4. thanks for your perspective

On the draft I believe your absolutely correct.

On Obama, you may be correct, or he may be just trying to sell books. He also might be so impressed by the reception he is getting nationally that he may just run for president, and if he does, I think he would be very formidable and could get the nomination.

On Dennis, well-put. He is a man of great integrity, but I doubt he will be nominated. But he will add a good deal to the debate.

[QuestionAll...]

10. more on Dennis...

no more 'buts' please... ;)

[KoKo]

8. Go Kucinich....If I have to vote for what's the current possibilities without Gore

then I will vote for Kucinich and be happy to do it ...no matter whether he hires inexperienced for his campaign or not.

I'm happy to support Kucinich ...if and until Gore declares or doesn't.

There's not one of the rest so far declared I'd go to the polls for.

[DemBones DemBones]

12. I'm with you, KoKo. Kucinich or Gore.

I wouldn't go to the polls for Hillary or Obama, who are being pushed big, or for Kerry (once was enough.)

[sandyd921]

18. I'm in total agreement

Gore's my first choice, but if Gore doesn't run I'm supporting Kucinich. I'm glad he's running. I haven't felt like the others offered me a viable choice that I could feel good about. Dennis has the solid progressive principles and the credibility.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Oh, please! Surely you exaggerated, no? !!!

"The Book as the Worst National Campaign Press Secretary In The History Of All Known Universes"

I would support any ticket with Kooch on it. I think he is wonderful, but if he loses, I don't think that it will have much to do with the choice of his campaign staff!

[WilliamPitt]

14. Why do you think that?

About campaign staffs?

[WiseButAngrySara]

16. I know they are extremely important, but I can't imagine an

election lost except in rare cases because of staff errors. If the entire staff bungled everything, all the time, well ... It has so much more to do with personality and ideas and political positions of the candidate,IMO. But you tell us! I can't believe you worked so closely with Kucinich. He is one of my real life heros...always tells the truth. What was he like to work with?

[crispini]

20. Wow, you're kidding, right?

Most of the time, the campaign IS the staff. The staff has absolutely everything to do with how the candidate's personality and ideas and political positions get out to the public. Candidates run because they have something to say and they are interested in the issues. Good staffers are the ones who decide how to get it out there, be that TV, radio, or direct mail. Staffers are the ones who decide WHO their message should be targeted at. Staffers are the ones who calculate DPI, run scenarios, and do the math. Good candidates are VITAL to the health of your campaign. I don't care how great your personality or ideas are, if the race is remotely competitive and you don't have good staff, you are NOT getting elected. Period, end of story.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. If they are so important, then let them run. They don't, politicians

do. And in my mind, the more 'staffers' the less real the candidate becomes. If political elections now depend so much on money and staffers it's no wonder that we are left with such shitty choices for candidates! It seems like you are suggesting that it's become an 'absolute necessity' much like PAC's have become an 'evil necessity'...when in fact, neither are necessary, and neither are elected, and thus are not representative. Only the elected candidates are. The more staffers involved in a candidates election, the more diluted the candidates message. The more political decisions that are made by lobbyists, the less truly representative our government.

[crispini]

30. Do me a favor?

In 2008, do some volunteer work for a local campaign, like a statewide legislature race, or, better yet, a local city council race. Then come tell me what you think. Even in a more perfect world, where perhaps the goverment funded elections, and candiates had equal access to media, the people who make the savvy choices about how to spend their money would have a great advantage. But our system's not perfect -- you have to raise money, and you have to figure out how to generate media buzz to get free media -- so people who know how to run a good campaign give you even more of an advantage.

[LSK]

34. staffers are the face of the campaign for the volunteers, fundraisers, etc

When volunteered 2 weeks for the Duckworth campaign, I met her once, for 2 minutes.

Staffers make the phone calls, make a lot of the decisions, crunch the numbers, call the donors, arrange the meetings, call the press, call the volunteers, they do all the work.

The candidate probably has strategy meetings, but is usually wisked around town or the state or whatever and works on speeches and doesnt know too much about the nuts and bolts of the campaign.

Volunteer for a campaign in 2008 and see whats its like.

[Radical Activist]

39. Good staff is the only reason Dean go out of single digits.

I would say that a good press staff and Joe Trippi is the main reason why Dean did any better than Kucinich or Graham, who both opposed the war early. Dean was also more media friendly since he's a moderate, but there were other moderates in the race.

[demigoddess]

15. i wish all the potential candidates would just fill out a form, check the boxes

to let us know their stands on things, so we would not have to listen to their boring speeches for the next two years while they inch this way and that trying to not offend their (base, future voters etc) listeners. And it would be real nice to give a gag rule to the pundits, too. I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth.

[some guy]

17. thank you.

I expect I will be supporting Mr Kucinich, now that he has announced his candidacy (well, I really need to go read that and be sure he really did announce...) so it's nice of you to mention the staffing perspective. Honestly, it isn't something I'd really given a lot of thought to before, but once I do give it a thought, it seems glaringly obvious.

:hi:

( I doubt I'll be advocating for him, or against anyone else on this forum, at least for another year or so. But I can send him a few bucks, and distribute literature among people I know, and get them aware of and thinking about him. )

[Blackhatjack]

21. I'd Like Your Opinion on Edwards As The Dem Nominee.....

... even at this late date I find many people still know little about Edwards, his qualifications, and his positions.

While in the Senate he was chosen by Democrats to help defend Clinton in the Senate. He was recognized as insightful, and much Republican money and sweat was directed at him because he was considered a real threat to them and their supporters(Big Oil, Pharmaceuticals, Big Banks,etc.).

Edwards has significantly upped his foreign policy resume, travelling extensively abroad meeting with foreign leaders on all kinds of issues. He has been a tireless advocate for the working class and the poor, and spent his time since leaving the Senate heading up an Anti-Poverty Center at the Univ of NC at Chapel Hill. He is a great communicator, a quick study of almost any subject, and has the respect of those who have opposed him inside and outside the courtroom.

IMHO he was not used effectively in the Kerry/Edwards campaign, and many of his positions were ignored --such as his opinion that there should be no concession in Ohio and that every vote be counted. However, he has never publicly made an issue of it, and has made no disparaging remarks about the way the Kerry campaign was run.

His honesty is beyond question. He did vote to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq as a last resort based upon faulty and untruthful allegations that intelligence showed there were weapons of mass destruction. He has since apologized for voting yes, and said knowing the truth at that time he would have voted against the authorization.

Even so, many Dems still view him as unqualified, and know little about how he has matured in a very short period of time. What is your view of Edwards and his potential as Presidential/VP candidate in 2008? Will the coming congressional investigations and the corruption on Capitol Hill make it easier for Edwards to run as an 'outsider' in that climate?

Thank you in advance, since I always learn something new when I read your posts.

[The Blue Flower]

23. I worked with Will

I had the distinct pleasure of working with Will on the DK campaign when he first came on board. The entire communications team thought he was great to work with and work for, and we were both shocked and sorry when he left the campaign. Having said that, I agree whole-heartedly with Will's assessment. He didn't have to be "the world's worst" for his caution to be true. The lack of experience of DK's top-level team caused untold numbers of problems on the ground for the foot soldiers. You're not going to hear the stories here due to respect for Dennis and his message. I will repeat what I have said before: if he governs the way he ran that campaign, he isn't the best candidate. And I agree with his message 100 percent.

[Radical Activist]

41. There are at least three former DK staffers at DU all saying the same thing

along these lines. I hope people notice. All the cards were stacked against Dennis but his biggest obstacle was the decisions he made about campaign staffing.

[The Blue Flower]

44. His leadership style

Eratic is the best way I can put it. We were THRILLED when Will was hired, but it was at the expense of throwing David Swanson (afterdowningstreet.org) off the boat after 18 months. Then two weeks later, as things were humming again, we were devastated at Will's inexplicable loss. Will was replaced by a friend of DK's who went back to his days at the Cleveland Dealer as a very young person.

[WilliamPitt]

45. The "humming" you speak of

was actually me growling and grinding my teeth. :)

It was more like a month, as I recall. A long, long, long month.

[Morgana LaFey]

48. And how else would he/ could he govern?? nt

[ulysses]

24. so we can blame you for the '04 loss?

:D

[dorkulon]

26. You don't think Obama has a shot, but Kucinich does?

Stellar analysis there, Will.

Obama has little experience, but he has the most essential component--charisma--in spades. How much experience did Bobby Kennedy have? Kucinich gets elected president when pigs fly, and everyone here knows it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. RFK Had More Experience

But like Obama he had magic and was selling hope....


To consign Obama to vice president demeans him...Nothing against the other contenders but watch him beat them like a drum...



I hope the pro IWR senators like Kerry, Clinton, Biden, and Bayh play the "experience" card so Obama can ask them why their wealth of experience didn't prevent them from supporting the "biggest strategic blunder in the history of the republic."

[WilliamPitt]

28. Where the fuck did I say that?

Damn. Silly shit around here these days.

[David Zephyr]

29. The draft: I agree. Obama: I agree. Dennis: I disagree.

The Draft: Charlie Rangel's touching the subject of "the draft" took the subject of Bush's civil war in Iraq right into the living rooms of America. I think it was brilliant and I agree with what you wrote.

Obama: He will continue to feel out the situation, but Jesse Jackson pointed out that once you declare yourself a candidate everything changes and I think that Obama probably faces the toughest decision making of all those considering running. He has the most to win, but perhaps the most to lose, too. He would indeed be an excellent VP choice.

Dennis: You are too hard on yourself. Joe Trippi in 2004 was not grounded for what he took on with Howard Dean. James Carville was not "ready" to run a national campaign in 1992 and came to political campaigns late in his life. I think that new blood trumps old blood in American politics. I think Bob Shrum and those like him, as well intended as they may be, hurt us more than help us. But you may be right.

[blm]

33. It was the Carville crowd who was also working AGAINST the 2004 candidate, too.

Seems to me that Pitt was more loyal to DK in 2004 than Lockhart and Carville turned out to be for JK.

[David Zephyr]

37. No doubt about it.

Dennis was lucky to have William Pitt and Kerry was luckier still to have him back. And I'm happy to see JK heading to Iraq for such an extended trip, too. Nelson just really scored with me.

[kentuck]

31. Don't be too hard on yourself Will....

There have been other candidates that have done worse...

[Annces]

32. Why would Kucinich run if he was not serious?

That seems kind of loco to me. Surely he knows experience counts.

[cali]

35. I base this on nothing whatsoever concrete

but I have a feeling that Obama might decide to seriously go for the nomination, and I wouldn't be shocked if he got it. As for experience, he has as much or more one of the most illustrious dem nominees ever (OK, he never won the Presidency), Adlai Stevenson, who was a one term Governor.

[Bake]

36. Will's absolutely right about the staffing issue

The ability to GOVERN depends on the ability to select and maintain a staff of skilled professionals. Read, for example, Woodward's "State of Denial." Much of the blame for the entire Iraq fiasco (entirely apart from the fact that it was a horrendously bad idea to begin with) is due to Bush's incompetent selections for key positions, notably Secretary of Defense.

Bake

[Radical Activist]

38. You were more qualified than Kucinich's campaign manager.

You may be too nice to say that Will, but I'll say it. And yes, it does speak to his ability to govern when you consider that he hired a campaign manager with absolutely zero previous political campaign experience. It also says something that he couldn't retain the few good, qualified staffers he did have, however briefly. He had two campaign managers, five or six national field directors, at least four press secretaries. I love his positions on the issues and love having him in Congress but the idea of Kucinich actually becoming President scares me.

Kucinich faced an uphill battle but he made it worse by his own gross mismanagement of his campaign. Frankly, Dennis doesn't deserve the hard work and money of the people who support him unless he's willing to be more serious about who he hires as staff and how much time he spends asking for money from large donors.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. That sounds like a Katherine Harris situation

She had a revolving door for campaign staff.

[Radical Activist]

46. There are reasons the press didn't take him seriously

besides the fact that he's a liberal, and his staff issues are a big one. What worries me about Kucinich doing so badly is that it gives the impression that a progressive can't win. He ends up hurting other progressives who might run now or in the future.

[Radical Activist]

40. I think Obama is the natural alternative to Kucinich.

He's progressive but has the ability to generate media attention, raise money and build support in a way that Kucinich never could. Obama also has a crack political team that defeated the Chicago machine in the Illinois primary, which is no small accomplishment.

[Dover]

61. Obama says all the 'right' things but he's got a slick finish that doesn't quite ring true

All the hype about his rising stardom (gag) and those who are behind that make me really uneasy.
His mouth is moving, the words come out juuuuust right and my skin crawls a bit. A visceral response.

American idol meets ivy league.

[Ceil]

47. Response from a Current Kucinich "Staffer"

Thank you, William Pitt, for your frank and open comments about the campaign.

I have been working for Dennis since February of 2005, as a transcriptionist, transcribing his video appearances, and as an online help developer for his websites. And I must admit, I happen to agree with what you said. Frankly, I have the same concerns, and I have voiced those concerns to Dennis.

And Dennis does listen to our concerns. Whether or not he heeds them is up to him. I think that, with Dennis, it is partly a matter of money - he doesn't have the available cash that many politicians do. I also think that part of it is Dennis's love for and faith in "the grass roots."

Whether that faith is unfounded is not for me to say.

As a transcriptionist and an online help developer, I am most definitely an expert. I have been a professional technical writer of software for 12+ years, and I have won numerous awards for my work and have shown my work and lectured on it at an international conference (Society for Technical Communication).

So I guess I should say that, for me, it is about volunteering for what I know I can do well. I simply will not permit anyone on our team to put me in a position in which I am over my head.

Most of all, though, whether Dennis makes mistakes or not, I work for him, because he stands for the exact country in which I want to live. For me, it is not about the results. As I have told Dennis privately: If you were running for town crier on one street corner of Cleveland, rather than the House or the Oval Office, I will do what I can to help you, according to my own skill sets.

Because for me, it isn't about the results - whether he wins or loses. I suppose that if I want to work on a winning team, I would just look at the polls and pick the politician who is most "ahead" in the polls.

But instead, I work for the person who speaks what is in my heart - to Congress and to the American people. In this way, I can sleep at night.

I am not much of a blogger, but someone on our staff pointed out your message to me, and I signed up and logged in just to say this to you and everyone else here. I probably won't log in here again, unless I get a bit of spare time (LOL...right!)

You are all absolutely right - you, and all of the responders here on this page. But there is more to it than the results. Sometimes, it is about simply living by your own heart; your own values. Dennis's voting record, and the things he wants to do are exactly how I want my country to be run. If no one else takes him seriously, I'm more than happy - and proud - to be part of "the joke."

With love and respect to you, and thank you for being so open and honest, because you are right!
-Ceil

[Radical Activist]

49. Money is not an excuse.

When the good people Kucinich does hire keep quitting, it means something. Something is wrong in a campaign when people with experience are replaced by people with fewer qualifications, over and over again. I'll be interested to see who he hires to run his campaign this time. He paid his last two very well.

I don't want my country run by someone who isn't capable of hiring nominally qualified people or retaining them.

[QuestionAll...]

51. what transparent B.S.

that's all.

[Radical Activist]

52. Why don't you back that statement up?

What part of my post is BS? If you want to know how well he paid his campaign managers you can look it up at the FEC. Its easy to prove. He could have hired someone with far more qualifications for that money.

We have at least three former Kucinich staffers at DU all pointing out the same thing about high turnover in his last campaign. Everything I write is backed up by reality, even if you find it difficult to swallow.

[QuestionAll...]

53. I happen to know some info about what really shook down

with Kucinich and mr. Pitt. and it doesn't besmirch mr. K at all and could explain many other related things unfolding once again. I know I'm being vague but I also know I cannot post anything to back this up as it is one of those taboo topics.

but I know, and others do too.

[Radical Activist]

54. But it isn't just about Will Pitt.

Will's post has credibility because he is only one example of many. Kucinich had two well-paid campaign managers and neither of them had managed a campaign before. The second one had never even worked on a campaign in any capacity at any level.
Do you know how many national field directors Kucinich had last time? I lost count at six. This was a serious problem that goes way beyond one person and the only one to blame for it is Dennis.

[QuestionAll...]

55. yes, let's spend more time talking about this

instead of what Kucinich has to say - which would have many people both Repub and Demo shaking in their corporate bought boots if he was in charge.

[Radical Activist]

56. That's fine.

I'll spend my time supporting a different candidate who says those things.

[QuestionAll...]

57. let's hope there are some.

last chance.

[Ceil]

58. Thanks for the Perspective, Everyone!

Hi again. I was up early and managed to grab a moment to read your reply to my post.

Thank you, everyone, for your rebuttal statements.

I have no idea what Dennis spent on his last campaign, and of course I cannot really speak for what motivates him to hire this person or that person; of course I was just guessing about that. And it is good that I can have your feedback, since some of you worked on his last campaign, and I did not. So you are in a good position to enlighten me, and I should listen to what you say (and I *am* listening). In short, I wasn't there; you were.

I'm not going to lie to you or blow smoke up your butts; doing my work on the team has not always been a picnic, and I think a lot of the stress and strain have been precisely because of what you folks have said here.

I was simply voicing my reasons for remaining with Dennis, despite all of that.

For me, in the end, it is simply about the platform and the votes and Dennis's floor speeches. Not everyone agrees with how the country should be run or what approach we can take towards international diplomacy and our economy. It just so happens that I do agree with everything that Dennis says. And he votes according to what I wish was being done in the House. That is why I work for him (pro bono, after working hours).

Maybe you are all correct: that these shortcomings will get in the way of enacting the kind of change that Dennis is proposing; but I think he would choose smart, experienced Cabinet members. Perhaps my faith in him is ill-placed; maybe I'm naive. But there is something about the way that he affects change when he goes to other countries to talk about the Dept. of Peace that he wants in the U.S. and around the world.

In the final analysis, it comes down to something very simple for me: Dennis keeps repeating that all of us - all people on Earth - are interconnected and interdependent. That seems to be the core of his political approach and beliefs, and it just happens to be a principle that I believe in and hold dear.

So I will work for him. Even if things get rough, due to inexperienced managers, etc.

But if he doesn't succeed, I would certainly vote for any other progressive. I lived during the Kennedy years, and I truly would like to see some of "the great society" revived in our country. We're so "off course."

Someone here said something about people shaking in their corporate boots. Good! I think it is time that the corporations' control over our policies ends. I work for corporations and CFO's CIOs and CTOs all the time; I work as a "right hand" to people in the upper escelons of the corporate world as a technical communicator each day. And I have no malice toward them; it is just that they have too much power and their priorities for the country are the opposite of mine (I often joke that I "work for the enemy").

Thanks for your perspectives. I just want people to understand that it is possible to work for someone, no matter what, just because the principles and goals that the person stands for are in harmony with one's own.

Best wishes,
Ceil

[Dover]

60. You are quite an asset to Dennis's team and to the planet.

Thanks for your honesty, generosity, wisdom and heart!

You can discover alot about a person by who and what they attract.

[Ceil]

65. Thanks!

...it is comforting that someone understands. I'm just following my heart. If my heart tells me that it is not a good idea to work for Dennis anymore, I won't. But until that happens, I will support him because he stands for what I want for the country.

[QuestionAll...]

62. kick.

[Ceil]

66. huh?

Kick? You didn't really mean *kick* did you? As in "kick the bucket" or as in "I'm kicking you" did you?

I don't mind if you don't agree with me, but please do not hate me to the point where you want to kick me for my opinions and feelings. I don't hate you; not even for writing such a scary, negative thing to me.

That is why I *never* blog - this is a definite departure from the usual for me, to even participate in this discussion. Because people are not in the room with one another, and so many "bloggers" feel free to type whatever comes into their minds, without thinking about it, first, or considering that words like this hurt people's feelings, even anonymously and online.

Maybe that is a joke to you; maybe I have a very thin skin (actually, I do). But such talk is unnecessary and unkind. I would appreciate it if you would not write such things to me, please.

What good does it do to debate about progressive change in the country and then write "kick" to each other? Kicking hurts; it is a violent thing. I'm sorry, but it just seems hypocritical to debate about progressive change and then kick people (even if it is "virtually").

We'll never, ever improve the country that way. And when you kick me, you are kicking yourself. What goes around comes around. I don't want you to be experiencing a sore butt when you find that out. You might want to "rein it in" before that happens to you.

Something to think about.

Okay, I know I probably won't get through to you, so I'll stop this silly arguing.

Best of luck to you and to everyone here.

-Ceil

[VelmaD]

67. Chill

You weren't getting kicked...your post was getting "kicked" back up to the top of the page so people would see it. It's an internet slang thing.

[QuestionAll...]

68. sorry that you misunderstood.

but as explained, 'kick' is a term used to bump up a thread without having anything further to contribute to it at that particular moment.

I sometimes use ttt (tothetop) on other forums, which is a bit clearer.
I don't understand a lot of internet language either, all those acronyms make me a headache sometime.

[Strawman]

50. Thanks for the post. You've given me something to think about

regarding Kucinich.

[Clarkie1]

59. I agree with you about Obama. nt

[mdmc]

63. Good stafferes are hard to find

:kick:

[QuestionAll...]

69. didn't Mae WEst say that?

a hard staff is good to find, or something like that. ;)

[mdmc]

64. That is what happened to Duckworth's opponent, right

shitty campaign workers?

[underpants]

70. What about smoking?

:shrug: