"If you can't say something positive about your own candidate, don't tear down mine..."

[Blackhatjack]

I believe that the best way to evaluate the Presidential Candidates running for the Democratic Nomination is to examine their positive attributes and see who brings the best ideas, positions, and resolve to implement them, to the Party Nomination.

The idea that you can get your own preferred candidate elected to that position by 'tearing down' the other candidates and hoping your candidate survives and can win with low approval rates is false.

I am never convinced that someone's choice for the Democratic Nominee is best when it depends on eliminating all the others for their faults.

If you cannot articulate the positive ideas and positions of your own choice for the Democratic Nominee, then I cannot give credibility to your choice.

It is a lot like saying vote for my choice, but I cannot give you a good reason for doing so.

There are differences between the candidates which should be fully explored, but do we really want to nominate the only candidate left standing after the withering negative attacks have ended.

[havocmom]

1. Accuntuate the positive, for sure. But not pointing out the negative is just plain naive

And we can't afford to be naive at this point.

[zabet]

4. Pointing out the negatives is not a problem.

It is how it is done and the flame war that
ensues that is the problem.

I can find something negative about evey single Dem
candidate, therefore, I look for the ones with the
most positive things outweighing their negative aspects.
I also look very closely at their voting records.

[havocmom]

It would be handy if there was some way to out paid operatives too.

Truth in advertising and all. If it is a Paid Political Announcement, I would like to know that. The FEC will be forever running well behind the technology and the machinations to exploit the technology.

[Blackhatjack]

17. Some of us may be more passionate about our candidate choice than a paid operative...

I would have no problem with asking paid operatives to announce their status, but how would you enforce such a requirement?

I am not a paid operative of any campaign, but like others who are passionate about their candidates, there is no guarantee that such a disclosure would assist posters here in weighing the credibility of the posters.

[havocmom]

32. Passion is fine. Paid passion without the admission, not so fine.

The rules need to catch up with the medium and technology. Don't see that happening, but it would be more honest. A paid commercial should be announced as such, on TV or on the web.

[zabet]

23. I can understand that.

I just look to see if they quote almost verbatim the current
propaganda pushed by a certain candidate. If they cannot do
anything but that, well, I can go to the candidates' web sites
and get it for myself first hand. Any one who constantly posts
bashing another Dem candidate while hailing their own - are also
subject to suspect in my book.

I am probably a cynic but, I trust no one when it comes to
politics. Everyone has an agenda.

[jgraz]

29. OK, I'm really hoping that spelling error was not intentional

:rofl:

[pocoloco]

2. OK, as long as your candidate isn't

some repug fuckwit in Dem clothing!!

[jgraz]

28. hey! Hillary is NOT a fuckwit!

See, that's two nice things I've said about her.

[emilyg]

34. You're a prime example of hate and no substance.

[jgraz]

35. Wrong, I have hate AND substance

I can choose to use either one at any given time.

[Jim__]

3. There may actually be something to be said for voting for the Dem candidate ...

... that most successfully withstands the attacks.

We know that in the general election, the repuke campaign is going to be attack, attack, attack. We need a candidate that can respond to the attacks effectively and attack back ferociously.

That's not pretty, and that's not our ideal campaign. It is reality.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

38. Jim, You're a smart man.

It’s ridiculous to say we shouldn’t try to expose the faults of our candidates. ...If regular (and irregular ;)) people like us here could find faults --you know darn well the GOP knows them already.

We need a winner, someone who can’t get swift-boated. (Kerry was attacked on his strongest asset, -he was a hero in the Vietnam War, he came home and helped end the war). ...Anyone who voted for the IWR will be torn apart.

[zanne]

5. HEAR HEAR! nt

[rosesaylavee]

6. I agree that there could be more positive posts about the candidates...

Wish there was more civility in discussing the negatives of the candidates. They all have them as none of them are perfect or will ever possibly speak to all the needs of every DEM that posts in this forum.

Civility in discussing the negatives is what is needed. Dispassionate discussion is what is needed. Can DU as a whole do that? I hope we get better at it. DU CAN play an important role in getting the info out to lurkers and others about the upcoming primaries and election season. Or, we can be better known as a snake pit that has little to offer readers and posters regarding valid and useful political information.

[porphyrian]

7. What if you don't have a candidate, but you want to discuss problems with one?

Why are so many people trying to control the marketplace of ideas for everyone else? If you have something positive to discuss, post it. If you don't like the tone of a thread, ignore it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. If the problems are with policy or voting records, I'd say that's

fair game.

If the problems are that they got haircuts, talk funny or look like garden gnomes, than that is bashing and unnecessary.

IMO.

[porphyrian]

11. Perhaps in your opinion, but others may not see it that way.

That's why I think they should be allowed to post about those things AND you should be allowed to post about how it's bashing and unnecessary.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Point taken. nt

[Blackhatjack]

8. When making a major decision do you first try to eliminate the choices by negatives?

We are looking at a job that entail addressing some of the most important issues we have ever faced as a country. Do we really want to choose our next President by eliminating the array of choices based on their negatives, and selecting the one remaining candidate?

I have no problem with discussing candidate negatives, but that cannot be the basis for us to convince the electorate to adopt our Party's choice.

Each of the candidates do have negatives because they are human. However, the most capable candidates have strong positives that will serve us well if they take office as our next President. We should not miss the opportunity to inspire the electorate to adopt our choice because he/she will take positive actions to address our problems and put our country back on the right track.

I just don't see a winning campaign based on "others are a lot worse than our nominee.'

[Rambis]

10. John Edwards has nice hair

I don't care how much it costs to cut and who pays for it. GO John- Just letting everyone here know he will win the Iowa caucus. So you can start calling us un-diverse,sexist, racist, hillbillies now if you like even though my town is 1/2 Hispanic and 1/2 anglo. Fire away!

[mopinko]

12. as the late great harold washington said,

politics ain't beanbag, son.

[tandot]

13. K & R.

Great post. Thanks, Blackhatjack

[Robbien]

14. Another thread

which is demanding that people stop saying bad things about DLCer candidates.

Whine, whine, whine.

If you can't take it, get out of the kitchen.

And this is a politics thread which should be in GDP. But of course, when one needs to whine, I guess the hissy fit gets thrown anywhere the whiner wants.

[Blackhatjack]

15. Folks, we are selling our Party's eventual Nominee to the General Electorate RIGHT NOW....

Independents, undecided and unaffiliated voters are watching and listening, as well as some Republicans who are considering voting Democrat in 2008.

THis is not just an 'inside the Democratic Party' debate we are having.

And do not forget that the most damaging campaign ads that the Repubs will likely run in the General Election will be based on what is said by our candidates during the race for the Party Nomination.

We as a Party can elect a Nominee to run in the General Election without tearing each other apart. If we sink down to the level of just negative campaigning within our Party we are reducing the chances that we will win in the General Election.

[GeorgeGist]

16. I hear you ...

the last 5 (of your 6) sentences are negative.

[Blackhatjack]

18. That is totally false. My comments were not negative against any candidate....

I am calling for the evaluation of positive characteristics of the candidates.

[smoogatz]

19. With all due respect, politics ain't the family dinner table.

I'm personally much more interested in open debate than a bunch of regulated rah-rah posts. I have no particular dog in this hunt right now, nor do I have any big axes to grind re any particular candidate; but if one (or more) of them aren't fit to vote for, then I want to know about it.

[Blackhatjack]

21. I believe in a full debate and discussion of the candidates and their views but in the end...

we have to make a decision to positively elect our nominee.

We don't get to go in the voting booth and mark out the names we don't like, we have to give one of the candidates our vote(which is a positive act), or not vote at all.

No one wants to squelch your right to fully explore all the DEM candidates, but if our choices are based only on the negatives of our candidates we will have a hard time fashioning a 'positive' campaign to the electorate in the General Election.

Can we all agree that any one of our Dem candidates would make a better President than any one of the Repub candidates now running? If we believe that we should understand the dynamics of what it will take to accomplish that goal.

[jgraz]

24. Unless that family is EATING BABIES FOR DINNER!!!!

:rofl:

[smoogatz]

31. If it's Hillary's family, and it's Thursday--

baby meatloaf!

[monmouth]

20. Hear, hear, spoken like an adult....Thank you.

[jgraz]

27. Actually, spoken like an adult with small children

I'll be over here at the big kid's table...

[Joe Fields]

22. I'll say what's on my mind, thank you.

No one holds sway over what I think, do or say.

[jgraz]

25. Ok, I'll give it a shot: I'm almost 100% certain that Hillary is not, in fact, Satan

How was that?

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Great post thanks.

[Larry Ogg]

33. There’s an old saying nice guys never win.

And believe me, the lying, thieving, deceitful psychopaths running this country, depend and thrive on normal people who just want to play fair and look at the good side of things, in fact that’s just what they encourage us to do just before they stick it up our ass.

Your reasoning requires the belief that wrong is easily recognizable and need not be pointed out. The problem is that when it is not pointed out, discussed or debated, it is not seen, not confronted, not stopped, it does not go away, and it remains unrecognizable.

I know what your OP is saying, and believe me I bite my tongue more than I should, but I know being nice and tolerant and giving in is when the bullies win, because they will never ever give in before the nice guy does, and before you know it the bullies will be running the country. Oh… wait a minute, they are running the country, and ya know why they are running the country, because someone said, “Ok, lets not argue about it, Just take the dam country, it’s really not worth fighting about, can’t we all just play nice.” And look ware that got us!

Did I say nice guys never win, and bullies never give in before the nice guys? Well sometimes the nice guys gets so pissed off bat shit crazy that the bullies find their chicken hawk asses packing with their tails between their legs. And if that’s what it takes for we the people take bake our country..., I’m not upset if it starts here on DU...

Besides the flame war’s are entertaining as well as educational…

[smoogatz]

36. Quitters never win.

Nice guys finish last.

[NobleCynic]

37. If your candidate of choice can be torn down by other Dems

he or she is too frail to survive the general against the Republican smear machine. As nasty as we get, we still don't have quite the same mastery of dirty politics as the Karl Roves out there. Primary season is nasty for a good reason. Think of it as a trial by fire. If you can't handle a Democrat going negative on you, you sure as hell won't be able to handle a Republican going negative.