"If ALL you did in the 2004 election was vote for Kerry, then you share the guilt

[gratefultobelib]

of having elected Bush." So said a young volunteer at the opening of an Obama headquarters this morning in Independence, MO. I know many, many DU'ers are very active, but I personally have to admit I share in that guilt. Not this time! I'm involved and will remain so until our guy is elected, and heck, even beyond that!

[gatorboy]

1. Well there's a silly statement.

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. ...in a series of silly statements from Team Obama.

:silly:

[Radio_Lady]

139. We worked out butts off for Howard Dean, and John Kerry. Don't blame us!

Mr. Obama & company will have to learn that there were political devotees before he was born!

What does this tripe come from?

[SammyWinstonJack]

144. Beats me Radio Lady. Team Obama seems kind of arrogant too me.

He lost me when he dissed us baby boomers. He also lost me when he promised that he would finish out his first Senate term before running for President. I don't much like him.

[rosesaylavee]

2. Silly statement and wrong. The election was stolen. Period.

And yes I volunteered.

[tridim]

4. It's a pretty dangerous statement too

Not everybody has time to volunteer. If a single mother of three can find the time to vote for the Democrat she's a hero.

[rosesaylavee]

12. People will do what they can... I think everyone who has

two brain cells to rub together has figured out that the country is going in the wrong direction and that this is a very important election. Already there are more people volunteering on the DEM side than ever before.

Guilt doesn't induce people to help - it tends to make them walk in the other direction. Or at least that's how it effects me.

And this nasty meme that the last two presidential elections were lost because either Gore or Kerry didn't do something right or we the people didn't do something right is dead wrong. And it needs to be stopped in its tracks.

BOTH ELECTIONS WERE STOLEN.

We have those who have been working hard to bring those facts to light for the past several years to thank for that knowledge. Hopefully those that perpetrated this fraud will get their comeuppance in my lifetime.

[DailyGrind51]

56. I was an anti-war activist during the late 60s and early 70s, but I have to admit

that I wonder how many of us would have been so active back then if it wasn't for the draft?

[Radio_Lady]

140. Exactly. The draft made the difference in those days.

You cannot take that out of the conundrum, but if you are anti-war these days, it requires the realization that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq at all. Or the corollary -- we've gone to war for the wrong reasons and killed enough US soldiers and Iraqi citizens. Or it was YOUR son or daughter who sacrificed his/her life. Also, we have crippled our country financially.

The pursuit in Afghanistan? Well, that is still up for debate. Does anyone think we should NOT have gone to war there? I've never heard any politician support that point of view.

Thanks for posting.

Radio Lady in Oregon

[DailyGrind51]

167. The Republicans no longer argue the veracity of going to war in

the first place, but the "success" of the surge. It's like the burglar who breaks into a home only to find the owner with something caught in his trachea, whom he manages to rescue with a punch to the diaphragm! If some good inadvertently occurs from the initial crime, does that justify the crime?

[polichick]

3. Sad, but true - citizens need to be much more involved if we want...

...to take back this government.

We have a long way to go, considering votes are STILL not verifiable in most areas.

[Breeze54]

5. Why do these "young Obama" supporters always seem to be pointing fingers?

Where the fuck were they in 2000, 2004 and 2006? Yeah, more of them showed up in 2004
but they deserted the party in 2006!!! :grr: They damn well better show up in November!!
I blame THEM for the 2000 election BS!! Those voters who were 18 years old in 2000, are
now 26? Where were they when we were SCREAMING for them to register and vote that year?
Same thing for 2006, when we may have taken back the senate with a MAJORITY of 60 seats?!

I don't feel guilty at all! I did work in 2000 and in 2004 and in 2006 to get DEMS elected.

They can take their accusatory, finger pointing, hypocritical baloney and stick it where the .... doesn't shine!!

:grr:

[roseBudd]

8. Some Obama supporters were in high school, in 2000 some were in grade school

[Breeze54]

13. I clearly stated the one's that WERE 18 in 2000.

I am well aware that some of his supporters are still in high school and can't vote this year.

I am addressing the hypocrites that could vote back then and didn't!!

[Skittles]

202. that's another problem

reading comprehension

[Radical Activist]

26. The Democratic Party completely ignored young voters and their issues for years.

Remember the Clinton era obsession with soccer mom's and social security? Gore didn't have a thing to say to young people except a line or two about a weak financial aid program when he visited a college campus. For a decade we heard every Democratic candidate in every state repeat the party line about social security, prescription drugs and health care FOR SENIORS. So if you were a young family or single in that time I guess you could go fuck yourself for all the Democratic party cared. You didn't need health care or prescription drugs or anything else, apparently. And if you didn't notice, that's the kind of outdated campaign Hillary was running, which is why so many young people went to Obama.
A lot of college students were going to the Greens because that was the only party speaking to them. Young people are always difficult to engage, but its hard for me to blame them when they were being completely ignored by candidates.

And I'm sure you must not be a baby boomer. Goodness knows the boomers never pointed fingers of blame at previous generations when they were young. hah

[Breeze54]

37. I voted the first year 18 yr olds were allowed to vote and in every election since then.

You need to be coddled to exercise your civic duty? What a load of crap!!

Nothing in it for them because the Dems "ignored "them"?!? WAH!!!!!!!! :cry:

First off, that's bullshit!! And a higher percentage of younger voters voted for the DEMOCRATS in 1992!!

Are you telling me that unless THEY are approached they will do NOTHING for their country?

How frigging dumb ARE they? They don't know or didn't figure out who voted YES to increase

educational benefits and loans for education, job opportunities, more money in their paychecks,

among other things? Gawd help us!!! :scared:


... in 1992, 44 percent of young voters chose Bill Clinton, while 34 percent supported George Bush

Seems they were well aware to me!!

Young Voters, Diverse and Disillusioned, Are Unpredictable in '96 Race

By DONATELLA LORCH

Published: March 30, 1996

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EFD81539F933A05750C0A960958260

Their first memories of politics are of the Reagan era. They only glimpsed the end of the cold war. And they have no unifying experience like the anti-Vietnam movement of the 1960's.

They are often irritated when lumped together as faceless members of Generation X because they are a diverse group of executives, factory workers, students, welfare recipients and volunteers.

But as this generation of 18- to 29-year-olds strives to establish its turf in a society where baby boomers set the agenda, one thing clearly defines them, political strategists say: Their numbers are large and their political allegiances fluid, making them unpredictable in the Presidential election next November.

"My biggest concern is that I'm still a college student struggling financially," Kevin Rogers, 23, of Hot Springs, Ark., said. "What jobs are going to be there when I graduate?"

"The past two elections, I've voted Republican," said Mr. Rogers, who has taken a year off from college to work. "This election, I don't know what I'm going to do."

SNIP---->

In the 1984 and 1988 Presidential elections, most young people voted Republican, according to exit polls conducted by The Times and CBS News. But in 1992, 44 percent of young voters chose Bill Clinton, while 34 percent supported George Bush and 22 percent backed Ross Perot, the exit polls found.

More...

[Radical Activist]

58. A majority of 18 year olds in your generation didn't.

I'll bet a higher percentage of 18 year olds vote today than in the 70's so don't get so high an mighty about looking down your nose at the current generation. Plus, you came of age when the political debate was focused on things young people were concerned about like the draft. That was never the case in the 90's.

You're right that young people helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992. They deserve credit for that. What happened afterward? Bill Clinton turned his back on young voters. He didn't live up to his promises and after 1994 he lead the party as it talked almost exclusively about issues that boomers and seniors care about. I was in college in the 90's and Clinton's student financial aid programs never amounted to much of anything. Clinton did a good job of attracting young voters in '92 but that's where it ended. A lot of Gen X felt betrayed by Clinton, not only because he lied about Monica, but also because he didn't deliver after we showed up to get him elected. It was a deliberate political strategy to take young voters for granted and you can't be surprised at the natural result of young people being less interested in Democrats by 2000. The party never really recovered with young voters until 2004 when they showed up to vote against Bush.

In 2001 I was very concerned about the future of the Democratic Party because party leaders had spent the previous 7 years using a very short-term strategy that ignored its future (young voters). The Party was only saved because of backlash against Bush. Now, for the first time since Clinton's 1992 campaign, we have a candidate who is really speaking to young people and they're responding by getting involved in large numbers.

[Breeze54]

62. 1972 Youth voter turnout - 55.5% ---- 2000 - 43% -- 2004 - 48%

I'm not looking down my nose at them at all.

I'm PISSED OFF AT THEM!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Exit_Pol...

18-24 Year Old Turnout Estimates, NEP State and National Exit Polls'

---------------

1972 - 55.5% <<<--- !!!

1992 - 54%

1996 - 39%

2000 - 43%

2004 - 48% One of the best year's ever of that age group!!


----------------

MIDTERM ELECTION YOUTH VOTER TURNOUT

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=25764

1994 - 26.1% of 18- to 29-year olds voted

2002 - 22.5% of young adults voted.

2006 - 25.5% of young adults voted!! That's it! :(

[Radical Activist]

65. You first link doesn't work.

How about the rest of what I wrote? Your numbers confirm my argument that young people were turned off after 1992, and how they showed up again in '04 to vote against Bush. There were logical reasons they didn't show up in '96 and why so many colleges had campus Greens by 2000. Bill Clinton nearly destroyed the future of the Democratic Party.

They'll show up even more this year because Barack Obama is the first candidate to ever really speak to the current younger generation in a meaningful way.

And why don't YOU explain why YOU want to point fingers instead of thinking about what happened and why?

[Breeze54]

72. They may have been "turned off" but that 's no excuse not to vote!

(Try googling this.... it's an archived file and it is available in PDF form too.
Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls)

-----------------

Now to answer your question and btw?

I didn't mean YOU personally when I said YOU in my first reply to you.

--------------------

I always voted. Why? Because I knew I had a choice and if I didn't vote, I had no room to complain about things!!

Was I always excited by the choices presented to me? Hell NO! But then I had to choose between the lesser of two evils (in my mind the Dems always win that one!) and although many say they won't do that, I will! I figure I have a better chance with the lesser of the two. I also know that you can't win 'em all, so I keep fighting. But IMHO, there is no excuse not to vote! Period!! Especially for those that weren't allowed to casts votes at all! Minorities, women and youth!! They need to get out there and have a say!!

[Radical Activist]

75. Its easy for you to say that.

Your generation has been appealed to by political leaders in every election for your entire lives. Gen X and Y have never had the experience of a Democratic nominee who really spoke to them, except to some extent Bill Clinton in '92, and as you saw, they showed up to vote in '92, only to be betrayed.

The numbers just prove my point that young people will vote when we run candidates who speak to them. I'm not saying its OK to stay home on election day. But its unreasonable to think people are going to vote in large numbers when they're being ignored by the political process.

[Breeze54]

84. That's baloney!! They did not bend over to kiss the youths ass at all!

I do not agree with that at all!

And Dean DID go after the young, old, poor, etc. voters! So did DK!

--

How did Clinton betray you?

If anything he fucked over the poor single mothers and workers!

But for a time he did get more jobs for everyone and more training.

He did some things I didn't approve of BUT he was a breath of fresh air

after that fucking idiot Raygun!! I don't remember any candidate breaking

down my door when i was in my 20's. Not one!! But I still VOTED!!!

[Radical Activist]

87. Read post 58 after the first paragraph.

I already addressed you question about Clinton.

The Dean example proves my point. 2004 is when things started changing and the Democratic party gained more support among young people again. Dean proved that young people will respond if you at least make an effort to speak to them about what they care about.

[Breeze54]

90. I'm not denying that!! What I am saying is that shouldn't be the only reason!!

They have to understand that it's in their best interest to look
at all the candidates and then pick the most honest and Liberal one!! :P
Do you understand what I'm saying? They also have to make an effort.

It's wonderful of they reach out to the youth but there was a reason Obama
made a point of doing that too!! It's called politics and your group is the
largest group since the Baby Boomers. He's no fool. and he got you all off
your asses, didn't he? Good! Now make sure everyone you know votes and is
registered and has ID's and all that stuff! ;) Get the 17 yr olds, too, that
will be 18 before Nov. 8th !

[Radical Activist]

157. I think you should take the advice of the boomers on this thread

who got offended at this young staffer, and realize that guilt trips and lectures don't motivate young people to vote any more than it motivates other age groups.

[Breeze54]

161. Who was lecturing? If you see a suggestion as a lecture, then

it's time to grow up.

[Radical Activist]

163. You worte in post 37: "How freakin dumb are they?"

Here's the rest of your lecture:
"You need to be coddled to exercise your civic duty? What a load of crap!!

Nothing in it for them because the Dems "ignored "them"?!? WAH!!!!!!!! :cry:

First off, that's bullshit!! And a higher percentage of younger voters voted for the DEMOCRATS in 1992!!

Are you telling me that unless THEY are approached they will do NOTHING for their country?

How frigging dumb ARE they? They don't know or didn't figure out who voted YES to increase

educational benefits and loans for education, job opportunities, more money in their paychecks,

among other things? Gawd help us!!!"


That's a hell of a lot more offensive than the very smart observations Obama made in his book about baby boomer politics that you took as some kind of horrible insult.

[Breeze54]

168. I probably should've said, " How frigging SELFISH are they?"

"Are you telling me that unless THEY are approached they will do NOTHING for their country? How frigging dumb ARE they?"

If they can't see the greater good for the WHOLE country and not just what they perceive as ONLY their problems/issue's,
then they are dumb. It isn't just young people affected by those issue's at all! And if they think that's the case, then they
are myopic! For instance you said; (paraphrasing)... 'they were upset or worried about college tuition and getting loans' ...

But they aren't the only one's worried or concerned about that at all!

See below....

(These returning students also need loans and grants. Money for education isn't just for the young!)

Community and Technical Colleges

http://www.colleges.com/admissions/articles/commtech.html

Snip-->

The average age at many 2-year colleges is over 30.

Community and technical colleges are convenient to adults, returning to higher education.

---------------------

Going Back to College: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

http://www.back2college.com/library/faq.htm

What is a Re-entry or Adult Student?

Re-entry or adult students (also called non-traditional students) are generally age 25 or over,
with ages ranging from 25 to 69 at many colleges and universities. Re-entry students are
often female; but men are returning to college in record numbers to update professional skills and
further career advancement. Some may never have attended college or started college and then
stopped because of personal, financial, or other reasons. Many have spent time in the workforce,
the the military, or in raising a family, and want to go back to fulfill lifelong dreams or potential.
Some are retired while others are single parents looking to achieve a better life. (The Department
of Education recently reported that 13 percent of students now enrolled in college were single parents,
up from 7.6 percent in 1993.) Economic reasons are a strong factor: students want to change careers
or update professional credentials. Some adult students continue to work while returning to school
while others attend part-time. It is never too late to go back to school. You may be just starting
a degree program, returning to finish a degree, seeking a second degree or an advanced degree,
or taking courses for occupational or personal enrichment.

[Radical Activist]

170. Selfish and myopic is spending 6 years

talking about almost nothing but social security, healthcare and prescription drugs (for seniors only), while ignoring that the age group least like to have health insurance is in their 20's and early 30's.

So young people are supposed to think of the greater good while being ignored, and baby boomers are somehow entitled to be pandered to constantly like they have been? Double standard. Double standard. Double standard.

[Breeze54]

171. Wrong! The least likely to have health insurance is UNDER 18 yrs of age!!

Are you talking about the last 6 years? RW talking points. Well; again and not to beat
a dead horse but if younger voters would also turn out for the Mid-Term elections then
maybe we'd have the votes in the Senate to effect real change but that didn't happen!
The Mid-Term elections, imho, are even MORE important than the Presidential elections.
Congress makes the Laws. If you have a RW leaning Congress, then you and I will be ignored.

Figure 3.

Distribution of the Uninsured and Total U.S. Population Under 200% of Poverty by Age in 2004



BUT, the 18 - 34 do have a higher percentage that are uninsured (in 2004)
probably due to having lower income, as they are just starting out in new
careers. But that has changed now with all the unemployment in the US and
people losing their jobs along with their benefits. I just got health care
insurance myself because my state now has a universal health care plan that
covers everyone! My youngest son doesn't have any health care insurance right
now and he's 19. So, this issue DOES effect everyone, Radical Activist, not
just your age group.

[Radical Activist]

173. Yes, my point is that it does effect everyone.

But from 1994-2002 we didn't hear Democratic leaders like Clinton and Gore talk about health care for everyone. They talked about prescription drugs FOR SENIORS, and expanding health care to other age groups, but not young voters. Are you even trying to see my point? Why would young people vote Democratic to get health care when most Democratic candidates weren't even promising to deliver universal health care for their age group?

That in no way shape or form was ever a RW talking point.

But hey, if you want the Democratic Party to keep ignoring young people then be my guest. We were on a course in the 90's that would have eventually destroyed the party and the progressive movement. If that's what you want because you'd rather get self righteous about how young people should vote out of nothing but civic duty then be my fucking guest. EVERY age group votes based on their own self interests, the boomers too, and its delusional to expect young people to do otherwise.

[Breeze54]

179. Are you fucking kidding me?! Ever heard of HRC's Health Plan while she was First Lady?

Please go read before you spout such nonsense.

"and expanding health care to other age groups, " <<--- What does that mean to you? :shrug:

"Why would young people vote Democratic to get health care when most Democratic candidates
weren't even promising to deliver universal health care for their age group?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Who controlled the House and Senate in 1994-2002?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1994

The U.S. Senate election, 1994 was an election held on November 8, in which
the Republican Party was able to take control of the Senate from the Democrats.
This defeat changed control of the Senate from Democrats to Republicans for the
first time since 1986.

Initially, the balance was 52–48 in favor of the Republicans, but after the power
change, Democrats Richard Shelby of Alabama and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado
switched parties, bringing the balance to 54–46 before the resignation of Bob Packwood
of Oregon and his replacement by Democrat Ron Wyden finalized the balance at 53–47.

[Radical Activist]

181. What year was hillary's health plan proposed? 1993. Why don't you read my post.

That means my statement had nothing to do with Hillary's plan. Right? Think about that for a minute.
After losing Congress in '94 Democratic leadership stopped pushing for universal health care and argued for an incremental approach that didn't cover young people.

You seem more interested in just contradicting anything I write and looking for reasons to be offended than having a real conversation.

[Breeze54]

183. I read your post. It's absurd! That's all she talked about for years!!

"After losing Congress in '94 Democratic leadership stopped pushing for universal health care"

Well, DOH!! How far did you think they were going to get with that
when the GOP wouldn't let ANYTHING that helped anyone pass?

They didn't stop talking about it and they're talking about it now!!

Get with the now.

[Radical Activist]

186. So then we agree

that they stopped pushing for universal coverage because they didn't think they would get it through congress and only pushed for smaller things like prescription drugs for seniors or health care for kids. Face it. Hillary stopped pushing universal health care for a decade after '94.

Its amazing how we can agree on something but you still find some tangent to argue about that has nothing to do with my point. You're a perfect example of how baby boomer psychodrama isn't going to get us anywhere politically.

[Breeze54]

188. How many Youth voted in the Mid-Term Election in 1994? - 26% - WTF?

1994 - Young People - 18 to 29

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS07_2006MidtermCPS.pdf

Number of Votes Cast - 10.5 million

Voter Turnout Rate - 26.1 percent :wtf:

----------

BLAME YOURSELVES IF YOUR NEEDS WEREN'T ADDRESSED, Radical Activist!!

[Radical Activist]

70. Also, look at who was running in '72.

There was a candidate who seriously appealed to young voters. He made an effort. Democrats didn't have that in '96 and '00 so its no surprise that young people stayed home. Hell, half the '04 election was arguing about what Kerry and Bush did during Vietnam. Do you think anyone under 30 gives a flying fuck about who did what in Vietnam?

All I'm saying is that if you ignore young people and their issues its unreasonable to expect them to vote in large numbers. They started coming back in '04 and they'll be here en mass in '08 because this new generation finally has a candidate for the first time.

[Breeze54]

78. Anything to stop the war, the draft and lower the drinking age to 18.

You're right. Those were all important issue's besides the fact that Nixon and his ilk made no bones about hating the youth of America. Yup. We were motivated but we were also motivated that it was the first time that 18 yr olds got to have a say in their world by voting! I feel a lot better, after I've voted, about the future. Then I hope for the best but also keep in touch with my reps because democracy is not a spectator sport. One's involvement doesn't stop at the voting booth. To keep the reps honest and on point, we all must be involved.

[Radical Activist]

81. OK

You wrote, "democracy is not a spectator sport. One's involvement doesn't stop at the voting booth."

So it sounds like you and the young person in the original post are in perfect agreement with eachother.

[Breeze54]

86. I do not agree with that person calling out older voters at all.

He sounds like a punk, know it all, that assumes to much. There were tons of people working to get that vote out in 2000, 2004 & 2006 and before that in other elections. He may have had good intentions but his choice of target and wording was poor. Yes, people should be involved and I know many that were. Online, on the phone and on foot to do that but not everyone can do that, so for him to use that broad brush was wrong.

[karynnj]

119. It was also the first time that 18 year olds were allowed to vote

which made a difference. Also the stage of the war was more like 2008 than 2004. 1972 was after Kent State, after my Lai, and after John Kerry spoke to the Senate. The country was completely fed up with the war.

Your argument completely doesn't work in terms of the results. More young people voted - but not all of them voted for McGovern.

Kerry came VERY close to winning in spite of the media, politically driven terror warnings and substantial cheating. As one who canvassed in New Jersey, I can tell you McGovern never had a chance. I think he likely won the college towns - but he lost almost everywhere else winning only DC (which doesn't count) and Massachusetts. If Ohio would have had sufficient voting machines Kerry would have won the Presidency.

Kerry had a platform that had nothing to do with Vietnam. The problem is the media gave less coverage to his speeches - which were on CSPAN and were excellent - then they gave to the SBVT, who challenged with no proof the official Navy record, and twere given endless hours of airtime even after they were caught in lies. The media condoned a character assassination.

[Radical Activist]

133. I'm not sure what you mean

when you say my argument doesn't work because not everyone voted for McGovern. Of course they didn't. There's never an election where all people in an age group vote for the same person. It was an election where at least one candidate increased turn out by specifically appealing to young voter issues, and where issues young people cared about were part of the national debate. That didn't happen between 1994-2002.

I remember Kerry bringing his shipmates on stage with him at the DNC. I remember how many profiles there were about his service in Vietnam that came form the campaign. Playing a blame game here isn't useful. Much of that election ended up revolving around what happened in Vietnam and that did nothing to engage young voters. Making excuses for Kerry doesn't change that reality.

[karynnj]

145. The campoaign did not put out many profiles on Vietnam

They had one ad that heavily used them in the primaries. It was one of series to define Kerry's character. The reason for the SBVT was that what Kerry did in Vietnam did show the typre of person he is. The way he acted with those men and the way he won the 2 important medals showed that he was brave, intelligent, creative and a leader. They needed to lie to counter that.

The problem is that people hit him for NOT speaking more to defuse the SBVT, then others say he should speak of Vietnam. The fact is that I listed to MANY rallies on CSPAN. The stump speech part on Vietnam was simply that he had fought for his country and a young man then returned home to try to end a war that he knew was unwinnable. Period. The rest of the speech dealt with the environmenmt, alternative energy, healthcare, Iraq, diplomacy etc

[karynnj]

148. The campaign did not produce many profiles on Vietnam

They had one ad that heavily used them in the primaries. It was one of series to define Kerry's character. The reason for the SBVT was that what Kerry did in Vietnam did show the typre of person he is. The way he acted with those men and the way he won the 2 important medals showed that he was brave, intelligent, creative and a leader. They needed to lie to counter that.

Also everyone runs on their biography. WWII was before I was born, yet JFK used the PT109 story. Not, because it was current but because it showed his determination. Kerry's medals were actually for near perfect heroic reasons - he saved lives. It is silly to say that anyone would not use that when running for President in a time of war. It would have been glaring if he didn't.

The problem is that people hit him for NOT speaking more to defuse the SBVT, then others say he should speak of Vietnam. The fact is that I listed to MANY rallies on CSPAN. The stump speech part on Vietnam was simply that he had fought for his country and a young man then returned home to try to end a war that he knew was unwinnable. Period. The rest of the speech dealt with the environmenmt, alternative energy, healthcare, Iraq, diplomacy etc

[Radical Activist]

153. In post 119 you wrote

"Kerry had a platform that had nothing to do with Vietnam."

Now you're acknowledging that Kerry also played his part in making much of the election about Vietnam by running ads on it, highlighting it at the convention and putting out some (so what if it wasn't many?) materials about his service. Yes, Kerry focused on running a biography campaign more than other candidates.
Nothing you wrote contradicts my statement that much of the campaign revolved around Vietnam. It did. I didn't say it was all Kerry's fault and assigning blame really wasn't the point anyway.

Why are you so scared to admit that Kerry might have done something wrong? You're trying to point the finger of blame at everyone else even when I wasn't trying to lay all the blame on Kerry. I never said it was Kerry's fault alone that half the election was about Vietnam but we have to admit that it was partly his own doing. Its important to learn from our losses, but it seems like you're too personally devoted to Kerry to do anything but blame others for his own mistakes and failings.

[karynnj]

191. I never said Kerry didn't make mistakes - like everyone else he did

Obama and HRC both made mistakes as well.

Kerry's PLATFORM had nothing to do with Vietnam - that is 100% true and I don't see a contradiction.

Every candidate does biographical ads - you've likely seen the recent Obama ones where he highlights being a community activist. You might remember the Gore ones speaking of growing up in Tennessee (where he spent summers on the Gore's farm). That is the level that Kerry used Vietnam in his ads - and he should have. The fact is he was a highly decorated war hero and the comments of the men showed he made very good decisions under intense pressure. They also mentioned testifying to the Senate, being a prosecutor going after the MAFIA.

Kerry did NOT run a biography campaign. Kerry ran as much on issues more than Obama is - he put out extremely detailed plans on:

- how he would deal with terrorism - that everyone this this year
- healthcare (believe it or not, Edwards attacked Kerry because his plan was too ambitious - Edwards covered kids only)
- alternative energy/environment - every candidate has taken parts of Kerry's rhetoric as well as ideas
- Iraq - read the NYU speech
- Kerry had the most progressive foreign policy that had been heard for decades - Obama's comments have a huge similarity

Do you remember the debates? Kerry was well versed on every issue and knew what he wanted to do.

[rch35]

74. Speaking for teenage Democrats everywhere

fuck you.

[Breeze54]

88. Truth hurts?

I hope you are registered to vote and I hope you are getting all your friends registered.

We'll be looking for you this year... again!! We'll keep the lights on... until 7 PM! :hi:

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Breeze54]

193. You know nothing about me other than I'm

pissed off at the casual voters (the younger crowd) who only show up if they think there's something in it for them alone and that's the only time they'll show up, per another poster here. When the younger voters do not show up for the mid-term elections, then they hurt themselves and everyone else! I've been an activist for change for many years; on the ground, the phone, the internet, out of state, trying to get people (the younger voters) to vote and I was disgusted and disappointed by the 2006 election lack of turnout by the younger crew. If you don't like it that I am still angry about that, tough! They could have made a huge difference, as far as the war and many other things, but we'll never know. I'm glad you're active and I welcome you. I just hope they not only get out and vote in Nov. but also at the very important mid-term elections too. BTW? I have no idea what you're little coded, (c** ** ****) message is but you can, can, the name calling. It's immature. If you voted, then my comments were NOT directed at you!

They were directed at the one's who did NOT vote!

Have a good day.

[book_worm]

124. I'm glad younger people are getting involved again because for a lot of them after the draft ended

they dropped out.

[dsc]

71. I remember increased financial aid for college

and Americorps. I also remember a man named Dean running on a total revamping of college loans. Did I dream those things? Oh, and Gore's talking about SS was about making sure it was there for the young.

[Radical Activist]

79. Americorps and the increases were small.

College grant increases were tiny and never reached middle class students. Student loan improvements were minor. Clinton never made major change or fulfilled his promises.

In regard to Dean. As I wrote, things changed by 2004 as a backlash to Bush. Bush being so unpopular is what saved the Democratic Party with young voters. Yes, Dean spoke to young people and they responded by getting involved in his campaign. Which again, proves my point that the Democratic Party has no one else but itself to blame for its lack of support from young people from 1994-2002. The problem was the party's failure to speak to them or take action on their issues. They responded when Dean made an effort.

Gore was talking about Social Security because baby boomers and seniors were worried about it. You can say he wanted to preserve it for younger people, and I'm sure he did, but most young people didn't care because they didn't believe it would last. If you want to appeal to voters under 30 asking them to think about their retirement is a pretty moronic approach.

[dsc]

122. It isn't Gore's fault that young people are stupid

It is a fact, not an opinion, not a debateable idea, that under the worst possible senario SS will pay out 70% of what it does today. That would be under slower economic growth than we experienced in the 1930's incidently.

[Radical Activist]

159. Wow. But its the young people attacking boomers, right?

It would be pretty stupid to for young people to ignore all of their economic needs for the rest of their lives and focus on the one issue of social security. Its basic common sense that someone trying to figure out how to pay for college, pay for health care, buy their first home, and get their first real job is not interested in hearing someone talk about social security.

[dsc]

162. It isn't attacking to point out truthfully

that they have believed lies for years. BTW I am not a boomer I was born in 67, those quaint things called history books tells us the boom ended in 64.

[Radical Activist]

164. Could you try to be a little more condescending?

Some people may not yet get the point that you think anyone younger than you is a moron.

No one really knows what will happen to social security 40 years from now. But it sounds like I used the wrong wording. Some young people didn't believe SS would be there. Others simply didn't care. That's not your top issue at that point in life and the party wasn't speaking to young people about their top issues. The party only has itself to blame for taking young voters for granted. I'm not going to blame young voters who didn't respond to Democratic candidates that spent all their time pandering to boomers and seniors.

[dsc]

166. that just plain isn't true

It isn't a matter of wrong wording. By every single, solitary, economic model using assumptions that use the lowest growth rates we had for over 50 years, social security does fine. It isn't a debateable unknowable thing. And it poisons are politics when people believe this crap. Now as to young voters and issues. Try voting. Why in God's name should anyone pander to people who don't vote and haven't overtime? At the height of the VietNam they couldn't even get over 40% voting. When you vote, and or give money, you get pandered to.

[Radical Activist]

169. Vote for who?

Its a chicken and the egg thing, isn't it? The party chose not to appeal to young voters because they don't vote. Young voters showed up even less because the party was ignoring them. Didn't Deans appeal to young voters pay off with more of them getting involved in his campaign?

You can play the blame game all you want, but if the Democratic Party wants a future then it needs to make an effort with young voters. People form lifelong voting patterns in their 20's. You can take a self righteous attitude about how young people have a duty to vote even when candidates aren't talking about their issues, but that's a recipe for the long, slow death of the Democratic Party and progressive ideals. That's the direction we were headed in the 90's until Bush's unpopularity pushed young people into becoming Democrats.

Your model assumes that the social security system will remain essentially unchanged, and as we saw with Bush's attempt at privatization, that's a foolish assumption to make. The future is not a knowable thing.

[Breeze54]

172. You may have heard that our Social Security system is headed for trouble, You heard wrong.

Social Security doing just fine

http://www.pww.org/index.php/article/articleview/4776/

Author: Mark Weisbrot, People Before Profits

You may have heard that our Social Security system is headed for trouble when the generation known as the baby boom begins to retire. You heard wrong.

In fact, the first baby boomers will begin to draw Social Security benefits just four years from now. Maybe then this ridiculous urban legend will finally be put to rest.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Anyone with a computer and a modem can go to www.ssa.gov and read the Social Security Trustees’ report. It shows that the program can pay all promised benefits through 2042, without any changes at all. That’s nearly four decades. Most of the baby boomers will be dead by then.

If you’re the type who likes to worry about unlikely events that may occur in the far-off, science-fiction future, you’re still going to have to find something else to worry about. The Social Security Trustees plan for 75 years, and even for this immensely long period of time, the much-hyped gap in financing is quite small relative to our economy. In fact it is less than three-quarters of one percent of our income.

To put this in perspective, consider that the average wage will be about 45 percent higher – after adjusting for inflation – in 2042 than it is today. Will we be willing to pay a little more for our most popular federal program, in order to finance the retirement of people who are living longer? I would guess yes, because our population has been aging for decades and Americans have always been willing to come up with the money. The additional funding would be less than our payroll tax increases in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.

But in any case this will be decided by future generations. In the mean time there’s no cause for concern. The Social Security Trustees are not trying to paint an overly-optimistic scenario. The numbers above are assuming less than 2 percent annual economic growth, the slowest in our history.

And four of the six trustees that signed off on these projections were appointed by President George W. Bush. The Bush administration has tried to paint as dismal a picture as possible of Social Security, in an effort to partially privatize the program.

A number of verbal and accounting tricks have been used to convince millions of Americans that Social Security needs “reform.” One is to lump the program together with Medicare, which has costs that are projected to rise explosively. But Social Security is a separate program from Medicare, financed by different taxes.

And even Medicare’s problems are not due to the government program itself. Nor are they primarily a result of demographic changes, such as the baby boomers’ retirement. Medicare’s cost increases are driven by the cost of health care in the private sector, which is rising once again at an unsustainable rate.

In fact, the United States now spends 15 percent of its income on health care – almost twice as much as the average for other high-income countries. This is a serious problem that will have to be fixed in the not-to-distant future. But it has little to do with demographics, and nothing to do with Social Security.

There are other disturbing economic trends: besides rising health care costs and an increasing share of the burden being shifted to employees, most Americans are facing increasing job and retirement insecurity. Over the last 30 years we have also suffered the most massive re-distribution of income in American history, in which most of the labor force barely shared at all in the gains from economic growth.

There are plenty of economic problems to worry about, but Social Security is not one of them.

--

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (www.cepr.net), in Washington, D.C. Reprinted from Knight-Ridder/Tribune newspapers with the permission of author.

[Radical Activist]

174. The system was in trouble

when Bush tried to privatize it. But what's your point anyway? Does that make it OK that the party ignored issues that young people cared about?

[Breeze54]

175. YOU are missing the point!! The things Young people care about are the SAME for OLDER people too!!

:banghead:

And vice-versa !!!

Stop drinking the RW Koolaid and listening to their scare tactics about SS!!

Gheeze! What's my point? :silly: My point is that your argument about SS is baloney!

And if you think by putting all your eggs in the Obama basket is going to change everything
and RIGHT NOW!11!1 ; then get ready for a huge reality check!! Without a Democratically
controlled House and Senate, there will still be fighting for changes we ALL want! Stop your
belly aching because some candidates didn't, so you say, speak directly to the 20 somethings!!
You aren't the biggest voter block yet and it seems to me that some of our candidates did talk
about health care, education, job opportunities, housing, child care... etc!!
Maybe you weren't listening! Take your headphones off, shut off the video game and listen up!

[alarimer]

102. They also completely ignore progressives unless someone needs their votes in a primary.

I am not lifting a finger for any candidate who pretends to be a progressive until he has sealed up the nomination, then shifts right for the general.

I have never volunteered for any campaign (in part because as a state employee I am barred by law from any volunteering) and I will never do so. I don't even send them money. If they need money they can get it from the corporations they have sold their souls to anyway. It's not as if my concerns are ever addressed. I am told to shut up and vote anyway. So I certainly not going to volunteer.

[Missy Vixen]

108. Those of us who've been volunteering and contributing to campaigns for thirty years now

are well and thoroughly sick of the BS.

>They can take their accusatory, finger pointing, hypocritical baloney and stick it where the .... doesn't shine!!

Amen.
It's too bad that the only method they have of motivating is shaming and fear, isn't it?

They've chosen their candidate. Let's see how it pans out for them IRL. Of course, I offer the usual disclaimers: I was not a Hillary supporter. Our household voted for Edwards in the primary. I have been voting Democratic since I registered thirty years ago.

Julie

[DailyGrind51]

182. Thank you! At my polling place in Chicago, the only people standing in line

in 2004 were age 40+. I would welcome a return to the draft, if for no other reason, than to get these 20-somethings off their asses and out to vote on election day!

[Skittles]

201. I get fucking tired of it too

absolutely

[mdmc]

6. That guilt is all mine

I traveled far and wide for Howard Dean in the primaries (all the way up to NH!).

As more of an anti-war activist then a dem, I did not like the "support the Iraq war" meme that Kerry-Edwards ran under. It even kept me away from Edwards in 2008.

[karynnj]

34. How is "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" equivilant to "support the Iraq war"

You also missed that the repeated comment that it was not a war of last resort - meant it was not a just war. I agree that through 2003, edwards was pro-Iraq war, but Kerry was attacked for giving a speech before the war saying not to rush to war. Here's how the right saw Kerry's position in early 2003. This is from David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter.

"How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.

(snip)
If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."

The fact is that Kerry was demanding Bush do what he and people in his administration had promised. In early 2003, the inspectors had been in for months and had they been allowed to continue, war could have been avoided.

[politicasista]

52. **crickets** n/t

[Radical Activist]

89. Kerry argued for a better managed war.

He never called for a quick withdrawal and he never presented himself as a peace candidate. I never saw so many people volunteer for a candidate that they weren't really excited about. Even the staff. It was all ABB.

Kerry was a decent candidate and if he had voted against the war he would likely be President today.

[mdmc]

92. agreed

[politicasista]

96. And he still got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history

Even from the Anti-war crowd.

And if he was ABB, why did he draw the crowds or still has support?. DUers that have met him have said the opposite. People the real world still like him.

[Radical Activist]

98. Any Democratic candidate can draw crowds.

Although they can't all draw the kind of crowds Obama is getting.

I didn't say Kerry was a bad candidate and I've met him too. But I can say from my experience meeting many staff and volunteers that most of them were motivated mainly because they wanted to get rid of Bush, not because they were all that excited about Kerry.

The flip-flops on the floor of the GOP convention say it all. Nominating someone who voted for the war played right into the hands of the GOP who didn't have to do anything but make people afraid that Kerry wouldn't be a strong leader because he's a weak, unprincipled flip-flopper. Paul Wellstone talked a lot about conviction politics and its sad that Republicans have been the ones using it more effectively than Dems. People will vote for someone they disagree with if they believe he will stand by his convictions and that's a large part of why Bush won.

[politicasista]

100. Yes, any candidate can draw crowds

Although some DUers will disagree with your post. Just sayin.

[karynnj]

121. That shows your bias more than anything else

Kerry drew far larger crowds than Clinton 1992 or Gore 2000. Why did they come? They did not need to see Kerry to vote against Bush.

Kerry was not a flip flopper. He also spoke against Bush invading when he did - arguing in January 2003 that the diplomacy had not been exhausted and the inspectors were working.

As to weak and unprincipled, had you looked at his history you would have seen that he was the man who stood against Nixon, when doing so could have destroyed any potential political career - not to mention Nixon sought to destroy him. You would have seen that upon entering the Senate, he was the sole Senator willing to investigate allegations that we were illegally arming the Contras and allowing them to bring cocaine into the country. Doing this at the height of Reagan's popularity was a likely career ender, not to mention there were death threats. Then he fought to close BCCI, even though Democratic bigwigs were involved. Not the action of someone looking out for his own political gain does - but it was the right thing to do.

The problem is that you bought the Republican smear - even as you worked for Kerry.

[politicasista]

126. Thank you n/t

[Radical Activist]

127. I'd say its impossible to argue

against a war while simultaneously voting for it without looking like an unprincipled flip-flopper whether you are one or not. You can't blame Republican spin for that. It was Kerry's choice and he paid a price for it politically. Hillary had the same problem.

Yes, I learned about Kerry's history, and like many others, it made me sad that he didn't act that way in 2002.

[karynnj]

137. He was consistent in saying that the US

should not go to war except as a last resort. In a Sept 6 op-ed in the NYT, widely labeled antiwar, he spoke of all the same conditions - exhausting diplomacy, getting inspectors in (as they were out for 4 years), getting a real coalition including the neighboring countries. He repeated those constraints in his IWR speech. They were things the Bush administration was saying they would do. He then spoke out referencing these things. That was a consistency that HRC didn't have.

Kerry's vote was wrong because it gave Bush the ability to say conditions were fulfilled, when objectively they weren't. Bush violated the IWR. The vote and the willingness to go to war were conflated - partially because it allowed Dean to claim he was the sole electable anti-war candidate. Fair politics, but it does not mean Kerry was for going to war in 2003.

In 2004, there was no real price - he got the antiwar vote in the general election and he won the primaries. He got 9 million more votes than Gore - and there were few third party votes. Had he voted against it, he would have been seen as too much a dove in 2004. His 1971 protests and reading anti-war poetry into the Senate record in 1990 before the Gulf War would have been emphasized - and they likely would still have attacked his service, because like in 1971 it gave him credibility.

The question then would have been the same as the one he got in the first debate about how can you fight a war you don't believe in. It would have made it harder to get the people who still thought - even if they had been against the war - that it could end up with Iraq in a better place.

The real cost to him is that he clearly regrets that vote and it likely kept many people who would have been his strongest supporters from voting enthusiastically for him.

[Radical Activist]

156. There was a real price for his vote.

First, the lack of enthusiasm from people who should have been solidly on his side, as you mention.

The second price was easy to see if you watched the flip-flops waved around by delegates at the GOP convention. It was foolish to think we could argue against a war with a candidate who voted for it. It had a major impact on swing voters who might have otherwise supported him, even if they weren't sure whether they wanted a quick withdrawal.

Picking any candidate who voted for the war was a doomed strategy from the start unless we were going to run on a pro-war platform and I'm happy we didn't make the same mistake in '08. I keep making this point because obviously a lot of Clinton supporters didn't learn from it the first time. People want a candidate who shows conviction and Kerry's vote for the IWR made it impossible to portray himself that way. You may argue how unfair that is all you like, and maybe you have a point, but that's still what happened.

[politicasista]

138. delete n/t

already posted.

[karynnj]

111. He did speak of some troops withdrawing in 2005

Howard Dean never called for a quick withdrawal either and apparently that didn't bother you.

We were in a war and what Kerry called for was a regional diplomatic conference to use the fact that the neighbors all had a vested interest in a peaceful Iraq to push for a political solution. He also spoke of wanting to decrease the American face to the war - and internationalize it. This was rejected by Bush et al as not possible - but in early 2005, Kerry spoke of France, Germany Eqypt and Jordan all agreeing to train Iraqis in their countries - offers Rice and Bush rejected, In the first debate, he spoke of no permanent bases. Many of the things Kerry spoke of needing to do were what the Iraq study group argued for two years later.

There was no way that a year and a half into a war, where even most people against the war when it started thought we needed to stabilize things before leaving that a candidate could have won as a "peace" candidate. Kerry, with his history and what he was saying was the clear choice for any one against the war in the general election.

Kerry also had more enthusiasm behind him than you credit him with. There was a reason he easily won the nomination. Here were some Youtubes that were connected to a Youtube posted here. People do not have to go to see a candidate that they are not for - if they had no interest in him and were purely ABB than they would simply vote. Kerry broke records in 2004 - that Obama will break - in attendance.

In fact, the ABB theme was a very negative thing started by people like Carville and Begala. The AB(X) desiugnation always was a PRIMARY thing where people would desire an AB(X) to beat frontrunner X - it was used against both Carter and Clinton to name two and it never seems to work. In the general election, there are always a large percent of people on one side or the other. I knew before W took office that I would vote against him - so I guess that made me ABB, but Kerry was and is the candidate I most wanted as President ever and I've voted since 1972. Now, in 1992, Clinton was far from my first choice, but it never occurred to me to proudly label myself ABB and speak of how I wasn't happy with Clinton. Instead, I read his book and used the good points to try to convince others to vote Clinton.)



Before Iowa - with all the candidates - Kerry had the most enthusiastic response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KTHmM2mzk
February, 2004 - Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tz2K9cTMM&feature=related
March, 2004 - San Diego
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tKsxZZ0HyU&feature=related

Minnesota - late October
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDVr9jXYqSg

[politicasista]

116. Good links

Anticipating the crickets afterwards.

[Radical Activist]

120. Some troops in 2005

is not a withdrawal. Ironically, regional conferences and getting other nations to take a larger role was LBJ's approach in Vietnam. It didn't work and it's not a peace plan.

And I did object to Dean not calling for withdrawal, as I wrote in another post, and its one reason why I didn't support him. I think he was the biggest fake to run for President since George Bush.

I remember when the idea that a peace candidate couldn't win was conventional wisdom, along with the belief that Kerry was the safest, most electable candidate. Well, we took that approach and it didn't work. I've talked to many people who said they didn't like Bush but they voted for him because they didn't know what Kerry would do or where he stood. He seemed weak and lacking in conviction. That's the result of Kerry trying to play it safe and have it both ways by being for a better war instead of being against the war. The fact that Kerry voted for the war made him unelectable. What I learned is that much of the party establishment has no idea what makes someone electable.

[karynnj]

125. If not Kerry or Dean, who would you have had run as a peace candidate?

The fact was the media did little to help Kerry get his message out. Did you think to tell people of Kerry's Iraq speech at NYU or the simplified version on Letterman? Kerry did give a thoughtful honest analysis of how he would resolve the war.

LBJ did not call for a regional summit, nor did he call for involvement of other countries. He had the Paris peace talks involving just the two Vietnams and the US. There was no intention of bringing any other country into the war.

As to being unelectable - without the OBL tape Kerry would have won. Even then he would have won if Ohio ran an honest election. Now, all I can assume is that you thought Kuchinich should have run - he would have been unelectable.

[politicasista]

128. Good question n/t

[Radical Activist]

136. You didn't know about South Korea and the Philippines?

Or his meetings in the region with Asian allies? Or all the talk about Vietnamization of the war? Read up.

You're right that the public doesn't like long, complicated explanations when its easier to say "Kerry voted for the war but now he's against it. He's a flip-flopper!" That's why he was bound to lose. It should have been easy to see his electability problems.

You hit the nail on the head. The peace movement didn't have a good, realistic candidate to unite behind. That's why Kerry won. If there had been a better alternative who voted against the war then Kerry wouldn't have managed to eek by on the electability argument.

Luckily, we have a candidate this year who opposed the war from the start, has a progressive record, and knows how to win an election.

[karynnj]

143. That was not to end the war

I was reading the news when it went on! I do know what Vietnamization was.

As I said Kerry would have won a fiar election - in a year that was not a likely win. 2008 is MUCH easier and I do think Obama will win. I don't think he has Kerry's depth of knowledge.

He was against the war from the start (though Kerry was too - as even Bush said before the vote - it did not mean that there would be war). Kerry's vote on that was wrong - but Obama's vote on Kerry/Feingold was wrong - as was his vote on the energy bill. Does that make Obama bad - no. Votes are complicated and there are just two choices - when issues are not black or white.

In 2004, fewer than 50% of the voters were against the war and far fewer were for an immediate pullout. The only way I agree that Kerry's vote hurt him was that had he voted with his heart (per quotes of his friends) rather than his head, he likely would have opted not to run in 2004, this would have made him the very obvious candidate in 2008, even if the 2004 candidate picked Obama for the keynote speech.

[Radical Activist]

154. You're repeating the conventional wisdom of the time

but it didn't work did it? We didn't win.

Bush got votes from people who disagreed with him because they saw him as someone who stuck by his principles. It wasn't true, but Bush did a good job of giving people that impression.

How many votes would Kerry have won if he had made a clear case against the war, moved public opinion to his side, and convinced people that he was someone who had the guts to take a difficult stand? That would have won him votes regardless of whether your number for those who were against the war is correct. Of course, it would have been nearly impossible for Kerry to do that since he voted against the war. You can make excuses and provide quotes about how he didn't really want the war he voted for but that's all irrelevant. The public saw the vote and it doomed his general election campaign from day one. The fact that you have to make these long explanations and excuses about his vote and where he really stood at the time is exactly why he lost.

Conviction, conviction, conviction. It matters. It seems like you're too fanatically devoted to Kerry to learn anything from that campaign.

[karynnj]

194. I just disagree with your conclusions

Just tell me why Dean polled about 20 points behind Bush when he was doing just that. The fact is that 2004 was never going to be a year we were likely to win. Kerry did very well to make it close.

The fact was we were IN THE WAR, the issue was not whether we should have gone. It was what to do going forward. That is what EVERY poll showed. As it was I KNOW people who voted against Kerry because they were angry that he said it was not a war of last resort. As strong Catholics, they knew that meant it was not a just war - and he made the case for that. Bush had NOT exhausted diplomacy, had not let the inspectors finish their work and he had not prepared for the peace. Do any of those phrases sound familiar? This made a case to me that the war was unnecessary - but that didn't change that we were in it.

These people were angry that as a potential President he would make a case that a war we were fighting was unjust. Additionally, they were unhappy that he was "second guessing" how Bush fought the war. This shows why a sitting President in a time of war has never been defeated.

As to the vote, it was something that should have been a bigger problem in the primary than in the general election - where a higher percent agreed with it. (I note you have no similar problem concerning Obama's vote against Kerry/Feingold - when his position 6 months later became close to it)

[Radical Activist]

160. And likewise

Kerry's plan to get other nations involved didn't sound like a plan to end the war. It sounded like a plan to push more of the burden onto others, which is not a peace position, and it sounded like a dishonorable way to not take responsibility for our own actions as a country.

[karynnj]

192. No it wasn't. What Kerry spoke of was trying to rebuild

stability in Iraq. This was not an attempt to have the region's other countries replace us as occupiers. He also spoke of the need to rebuild the country. It was more a peace policy as anything else - with Kerry speaking of the regional summit as soon as he became President. It was an attempt to take responsibility and to do it with the Iraqis making the decisions - not us.

What would you consider a "peace policy"? Just leaving?

Are you happy with Obama's plan? It is really mostly a variation of Kerry/Feingold.

[blm]

196. Nope - he argued to stabilize Iraq and then turn it over to UN and NATO and no permanant US bases.

That would assure most US troops out of Iraq within the first year of a Kerry presidency and the Iraqi people would NEVER have felt they were being occupied. If you told people all Kerry wanted was a better managed war then you are responsible for misleading them.

[mdmc]

91. When I was protesting the war the dems were divided

There was the solid anti-war Dems = Carol Braun, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and Howard Dean.
Then there were the "electable" dems = Graham, Leiberman, Edwards, Gerhardt, and Kerry.

I remember Kerry's convention speech - he didn't run as an anti-war protester (like he was after returning from nam). He ran as a war hero. "Send Me".

Or to put it another way - Kerry is about as anti Iraq war as Obama is. Obama won't end the war, he will fight it smarter. America will be victorious.

[Radical Activist]

97. Except that

Obama does call for a reasonably quick withdrawal timetable while Kerry did not. Obama did speak at an anti-war protest before the war began, while Kerry did not. I don't think that's a fair way to describe Obama's position at all.

Even Dean (who has never shown up at an anti war rally) said in '03 that he would carry on the war for another 3-5 years, so Obama has a stronger peace position than Dean ever had.

[politicasista]

99. And Obama shows respect for one of his hardworking surrogates

than DUers do. Obama knows who he can trust, who his friends are, and who has his back when it mattered most.

Times are different now. We are in a post Iraq Civil War, post Katrina, post high gas, food, prices, post bad economy. And a media that no longer needs to protect Bush and chalk up fake terror alerts.


I am proud of Obama for being a respectful, impressive candidate!

[Radical Activist]

101. You mean Kerry?

I don't think people often think about how much Kerry has done to help Obama. If I had to name the two Democratic leaders who are most responsible for helping Obama get the nomination I'd name Dick Durbin and John Kerry.

Kerry chose Obama to give the '04 convention keynote speech. Kerry was an early major endorser and helped get the support of other Senators like Ted Kennedy. He helped provide much of Obama's early staff with veterans of the Kerry campaign. He helped Obama tap into his national donor base.

Maybe Obama would have still been nominated for President in some future year but he wouldn't be the '08 nominee if it weren't for John Kerry.

[politicasista]

103. Yep

But that doesn't stop the Peanut Gallery from taking potshots at him four years later. I don't think Gore (whom I like) past Dem nominees got that kind of treatment.

[mdmc]

106. I would agree with you. I do agree with you

:shrug:
We will get to see soon enough. President Obama will show us when the time is right.

[karynnj]

135. Different time - and Kerry called for a timeline before Obama

Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold. Without Kerry taking the flack that came with pushing to change a policy that was not working, I doubt almost all the democrats would be where they are now. Kerry was vilified for that at the time and was on many many talk shows arguing that a one year timeline was not cut and run. Obama shifted to a position like Kerry's in early 2007.

Kerry did speak against rushing to war at Georgetown University on January 23, 2003. It was enough that he was singled out by many on the right as anti- war. ( See - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3681933&mesg_id=3682166 )
Kerry also spoke out several other times in that period - though he had been diagnosed with cancer in December 2002 and had surgery in mid February 2003, which was why he was not at the DNC event in mid-February where Dean gave a fiery anti-war speech.

Your problem with Kerry seems to be mostly his vote - a vote that he has repeatedly said was wrong.

[karynnj]

130. "send me" was Bill Clinton's speech - not Kerry's

Kerry's speech spoke of having fought in Vietnam - and he did NOT say he was a war hero - and then returning to fight. He also spoke as having been one who fought in terms of knowing that war should be a last resort. Kerry spoke as both the Kerry he was in Vietnam and as a protester. You mistake who Kerry was in 1971, even then he told the Senate that he would fight for the US if it were threatened. Kerry in 2004, was speaking of using diplomacy and the international community to resolve the war, leaving a stable Iraq. He also was the first person I heard to bring up the issue of permanent bases - demanding Bush reject them.

You might have noticed in 2005 and 2006, that Kerry was calling for getting the US off the frontline and out when Dean was backing the Korb plan that did not do this and left us there about twice as long as Kerry's plans. (Dean's 2004 plan was too vague to compare) Kerry, far more than Dean, spoke of international diplomacy.

[Radical Activist]

158. Yes, I laughed when I noticed Kerry

finally take the position in 2005 that he should have taken in 2004. He might have won the election with a clear, principles stand like that. Maybe he finally learned from his mistake.

[karynnj]

195. Except the situation in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 was different

His 2005 plan was very much derived from the 2004 one, and the 2006 one from the 2005 one. Kerry's 2004 plan was clear and principled as well - and he even summarized it in about a minute on Letterman.

About the only difference in 2005, was that he explicitly spoke of getting the US out of policing and Search ad destroy. Even then, it was clear he meant that in 2004 - when he spoke against permanent bases and minimizing the American face of the mission. To have done that explicitly in 2004 would have been way too risky - bringing up the same things he spoke of in 1971.

The biggest problem was that many anti-war people could not see beyond the vote.

[roseBudd]

7. Not me, I busted my ass on GOTV in 04 but Bush still won

[polichick]

30. He didn't win - that's why we have to do more than vote.

[politicasista]

55. We have to stand by our candidate and be the media

The media and the GOP are our enemies.

[polichick]

9. After two stolen elections, we the people (en mass) have yet to DEMAND verifiable votes.

[readmoreoften]

129. "Demanding" takes organization/solidarity between groups that refuse to form a coalition.

The Communists under Mao and the Chinese Pro-Capitalist Nationalists under Chang Kai Shek worked together to fight the Japanese invaders after Shek hunted and killed over 100,000 communists.

But the majority of Right-Wing Libertarians, (Non-Corporate/Anti-War) Democrats, Greens, Socialists, Anarchists and Communists would rather die than work together. Or, really, they'd rather indirectly kill faceless people than work together to oust the anti-democratic forces that took control of the country. For example, you'll find people quite a bit kinder here towards Obama-supporting Republicans who voted for Bush in '04 and '08-- even those who still hold the same beliefs about the free market, expanding homeland security, anti-gay initiatives, and overturning Roe--you'll find that they get kinder treatment than someone who voter for Nader in '00 and Kerry in '04 but who has really worked hard in the anti-war movement and shares most of the same beliefs. I voted for Gore in 2000, and of course I voted for Kerry in 04 and all the Democrats in 06 but I've always found the vitriol against Greens to be ludicrious. (Of course now that we have a pro-FISA, reversed-position-on-NAFTA, pro-expansion of faith-based funding, pro-expansion of the war on terror candidate I don't know what being a Democrat means anyway, other than having a media superstar candidate who's bound to win and change not a damn thing.)

"Demanding" means asserting power together as a people and that means accepting personal risk. It also means standing next to people we thoroughly disagree with on the most important issues in our lives in order to accomplish the goal of restoring a democracy. People are waiting for the bottom to react to this disaster--as if they want to buy into the movement when the stakes go up, when the economy collapses, etc. Total absurdity. People don't protest or strike now because "they can't afford to take off from work." Imagine what it will be like with a collapsed economy.

Anyway...

[Malikshah]

10. Then this "young Obama volunteer" is what is wrong with the system

and ought to be shunned and publicly harangued.

The complete and total arrogance displayed in such a statement smacks of a complete lack of self-awareness and of history.


Shame on this "volunteer" and those that agree with that kind of sentiment.

Get a grip and look into the history and reality of events, not just your own little existence.

[Union Thug]

27. It's that kind of arrogance and divisiveness that constantly kills the left...

It could be an Obama supporter pointing fingers at those lesser dems that don't volunteer and who, oh horror of horrors, only show up to vote. Or the sanctimonious environmentalist who routinely snubs the working class for daring to try to survive and support their families on the increasingly shittier jobs they are forced to take. Or conversely, the working class person who blames environmentalists for destroying those jobs, etc....

In any case, this kind of bullshit just turns us against eachother and weakens our ability to get anything done.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. !

:thumbsup:

[trashcanistanista]

11. No, I voted and they stole it.

Simple as that. I knew it that night. AFTER that, I became active. First thing I did was sign up for election duty. I have grown in my activism since then. Kerry's loss is not my fault and I share no guilt.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. I volunteer many hours to my Congressional candidate.

I will vote for Obama. That's just the way it is.

[gratefultobelib]

15. Well, he inspired me! Plus, he admitted he was one who did not do anything but vote.

[polichick]

31. I'm sure he wasn't just talking to older voters...

Glad you're involved ~ it'll take all of us working together!

[gratefultobelib]

47. Thank you! I may never start another thread! Just kidding. I don't mind being disagreed with. Wh

this young man said resonated with me, and I DO feel guilt that I didn't do more last time, especially here in Missouri. Thanks again.

[polichick]

54. Well, I hope you start plenty of new threads...

I was volunteering at our Obama office today and worked with a woman in her 60s who had never done more than voted ~ until now.

Have a great time with it ~ I've met the best people of all ages working on campaigns, and I'm sure you will too!

[Radical Activist]

61. Funny how many people made it an age issue so quickly.

[polichick]

76. I know - a little shocking...

Something similar played out at our local Obama office not long ago, when a couple of new young Obama employees gave an overview of what happened during the primary and some of the older volunteers (who are used to being in charge) got all bent out of shape ~ even though they were only giving the campaign view.

There are always turf wars during political campaigns ~ but this old vs. young thing is really NOT good!

[Breeze54]

105. Obama made it an issue.

Blame him.

[polichick]

107. He did? How?

[Breeze54]

109. In his book. He attacked the boomers

Many boomers (of which he is one) were pissed off at that and his rhetoric.
Surely you knew that. That's when a lot of the "splitting' of the party began
during the primaries and that's why it was such a fiasco in GD-P during that
time and some still lingers. The comment you made about not understanding
why some in this thread immediately saw an attack on older voters astounded
me. Of course it was older voters being singled out. They DID vote in 2006!
They are older now since that election. He wasn't talking about 'the youth'.
They showed up in small numbers, as we've already discussed. 25% in 2006. :(

---------------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/08/obama-hits-generational-d_n_71729.html

"I mean, Senator Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the
'60s, and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

- Barack Obama -

~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html?ref=weekinreview

“In the back and forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004,” he writes,
“I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted
in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on
the national stage.”

- Barack Obama -

--------------------------------------

That didn't go over big at all and the attacks against Baby Boomers on DU escalated.

Also wasn't a very smart move by him, as the Boomers are the largest voting block.

So, when the guy in the OP made the comment, many here that are Boomers took offense.

It was the older voters that voted and at least we DID show up to vote!

[polichick]

152. Oh that - as a boomer, I shook it off ages ago...

I think it's silly that people here took the young volunteer's comment as an attack on older voters. Of course, he was speaking to the whole group.

Our nominee was definitely "inartful" in the comments about his fellow boomers and I was put off at first, but he was right that we can't get anything done if we don't get past the us vs them thing ~ and old habits die hard. Barack clarified his position early on in the primaries, which was fine by me.

I've been to way too many Obama meetings run by young people to think that the volunteer in the op was only talking to older voters. In fact, he was also talking about himself. While we were volunteering yesterday another boomer said, "I'm glad to see all these kids working like this ~ it's time for them to start taking charge." I agree.

[polichick]

16. Why are so many missing the point here??

We DON'T have a democratic process, so voting isn't enough. That's the point.

We have to be involved and vigilant ~ and each of us should personally know our Congressperson, and call his or her office often to express our opinions.

[Breeze54]

18. Really? It seemed to work in '06, inspite of the youngsters NO SHOW!

Would have worked a lot better, had they shown up.

[polichick]

20. What worked? We were robbed...

That's the point ~ we can't rely on voting alone. The votes have to count, and it's up to us to see that they do.

[Breeze54]

23. IN '06?! We WON the HOUSE & the SENATE in 2006 !!

:eyes:

[polichick]

24. I misread that - but the point remains the same. All of the votes won't count this time either...

It's up to us to fight for verifiable votes ~ and, in the meantime, make sure there are enough votes to counteract all the dirty tricks that will most definitely be played.

We will also have to police our polling places ~ something I took part in during the primary.

[Breeze54]

42. I already have done all that. Year after year.... Have you?

:shrug:

[polichick]

44. I have for 30+ years - but many people think voting is enough...

imo the volunteer was just making an important point for those (young and old) who are showing up at offices for the first time.

[polichick]

29. Actually, the youth vote was up by two million in 2006...

http://www.yda.org/actions/103/tell-the-youth-vote-story

[Breeze54]

49. Only 25.5 percent of 18-24 yr olds voted in 2006 !

Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Exit_Polls.pdf

18-24 Year Old Turnout Estimates, NEP State and National Exit Polls'

---------------

1972 - 55.5% <<<--- !!!

1992 - 54%

1996 - 39%

2000 - 43%

2004 - 48% One of the best year's ever of that age group!!


----------------

MIDTERM ELECTION YOUTH VOTER TURNOUT

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=25764

1994 - 26.1% of 18- to 29-year olds voted

2002 - 22.5% of young adults voted.

2006 - 25.5% of young adults voted!! That's it! :(

There may have been an increase of voter registrations but they didn't show up!

[polichick]

59. It was still up from 2002 - & this year will be better than 2004...

Honestly, parents haven't been doing their jobs either ~ my kids wouldn't get tuition if they didn't vote. Good grief, how hard is it?!

(But it's not just young people. Working on GOTV yesterday, I met a couple of 60+ year-old men who don't vote ~ and I gave them the lecture of their lives! lol)

[Breeze54]

66. What was UP in 2002? Not youth voters. --

I think many parents and schools are shirking their responsibility of teaching Basic Civics!
All my kids, from the time they were babies, went with me to vote. My youngest still does
or did last year and we both voted! ;) More parents need to be doing that, I agree with you.

[polichick]

69. Up in 2006 FROM 2002 - at least we're going in the right direction...

My kids always went to vote with me too. It's sad that things have to get so bad for people to wake up, but this time WE'RE WINNING! :)

[fudge stripe cookays]

85. I'm not missing anything.

ACCUSING the people you're trying to appeal to will only make them pissed off and bitter. It's the truth, but it is not the way to appeal to people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Hell, it took all my nose holding skills to vote for him.

He did a helluva job losing what should have been an easy win.

[Breeze54]

22. The election was stolen ... it's been documented but

if more people had gotten off their asses to change other voters minds
and more people had actually voted, maybe we could have overwhelmed the
machines and the thieves. I guess we'll never know for sure.

[SammyWinstonJack]

43. We shouldn't have to overwhelm the machines and the thieves.

Congress should do something about election fraud. Eight years on and we are still facing those problems.

[Breeze54]

51. I agree but that is one way to beat them .....

while many are trying to get them thrown out. I know it sucks, the machines suck.
But we all have to get out there and try to over take them again this year while
also trying to get HAVA reformed or redone or what ever needs to happen to make
elections secure! ( I am aware of HAVA but don't have it all in front of me )

[SammyWinstonJack]

53. Oh I agree that we all need to get out and vote. It's just so frustrating that

the pols won't address this very serious problem with regard to election fraud, in any meaningful way. :argh:

[Breeze54]

57. Not just vote but get others to vote that haven't before or for awhile!

The more that vote, the harder it may be for them to even try to steal another election!

Maybe....

Election fraud may finally be addressed for real, if we can get enough people to register
to vote and actually vote and then also vote out the one's that have done nothing about
election fraud when they could have!! JMO. ;) and I don't mean voter ID's either.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. I understand what you are saying and there are a few people I am trying to convince to

vote this time around, who haven't voted in the past.

It's not an easy thing to accomplish when these people are convinced that it doesn't matter, all politicians are the same, only out for themselves.

I don't personally believe that, yet taking the the past eight year into consideration, it's hard to argue otherwise. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

19. Completely true statement.

Voting is the bare minimum act. Informed people who care shouldn't pretend that's enough.

[Vinca]

21. I must disagree. If a full scale investigation had ensued after the 2004 election,

I'm betting Kerry would have been in the White House. You can work 24/7 for Obama from now until the election, but they've still got the machines. I'm worried to death about it.

[Octafish]

25. 5-4

Scalia and his supreme turds are guilty of foisting Bush on America and the world.

Hope Obama's memory is better than this young volunteer's.

[Bunny]

28. Well, those are the words of an arrogant little puke.

What an asinine statement. If he or she thinks that will bring in the votes, by all means, keep repeating it. :eyes:

[Iris]

48. and the really sad thing is, I hope he or she never has to eat his words.

I hope Obama wins and if that is the case the little puke might not have to experience how it feels to watch the country go down the toilet while he's in the prime years of his life. I just don't know how a smug and self-agrandized younger generation will ultimately make things better.

[elocs]

32. Yes, guilt tripping is such a great and successful motivator. n/t

[Warpy]

33. How utterly idiotic

Kerry voters have nothing to be guilty about.

[MadHound]

35. If all the party could do was throw up Kerry as our nominee

Then frankly it is the party that is at fault for having such a nominee, rather than the people who were uninspired by him.

[Blue_In_AK]

64. You may think that Obama is a better "nominee"

(whatever that means), but I feel certain that Kerry would have been an exceptional president. Obama's got the flash and certainly knows how to work the media better than Kerry did, but Kerry had the experience and the wisdom that I think Obama lacks.

Just my opinion.

[politicasista]

77. And Kerry is helping Obama but few here show respect for it

And even though Obama is working the media better, they are still giving him the same treatment that Kerry and Gore got. He is getting more coverage, but the stories are negative. :mad:

[Blue_In_AK]

82. I never understood the disdain

so many at DU showed toward Senator Kerry, who did not "lose" the 2004 election any more than Al Gore did in 2000. I will always be a proud supporter.

[politicasista]

83. I never understood it either

It's weird.

:hi:

[MadHound]

118. Didn't say that Obama was the better nominee

Frankly I haven't been terribly thrilled with Democratic candidates for a long while now. It's hard to get enthused over the "lesser of two evils":shrug:

[Blue_In_AK]

134. I hear you, MadHound.

I actually did like John Kerry, but this year I just can't get enthused. I think it was Oprah that soured me. At least I have a good progressive Congressional candidate in which to invest my political energy. She has a strong opponent in our primary, which is August 26, so the fun is beginning even now. If she loses, I may just crawl in a hole until this is all over.

[saracat]

36. Well isn't that typical. I am sooo glad they know sooo much more than anyone else. Even now, take a

look at the dieheard volunteers on the state and lovcal levels, they often have grey hair. Sorry but the young twits like this really frost me!
Currntly we can't even get the young Dems in our community to do squat. It is the olsters walking door to door.
And I remember that with all the hoopla about the "youth vote" and Dean, they couldn't even bother to vote for him in the University centers in Iowa. But they showed up to party.They always do.

[OwnedByFerrets]

38. Nothing like being Smug and Wrong in the same sentence...nt

[flvegan]

41. Good point, VERY poorly made.

That's like saying if you only adopted one shelter animal, you share the "guilt" of the killing of the 5 million that were put down because they weren't adopted.

[bluestateguy]

45. I should have done more, yes.

All I did was vote and send $25 to the DNC, but I was financially struggling at the time.

On the other hand, my lonely vote in (at the time) Bush-worshipping Texas, didn't count for a whole lot.

I have donated much more this year and am planning to be a boot on the ground this fall for Obama in the swing state I live in.

[Iris]

46. Yeah. I'm guilty of being burned out, disillusioned, and disappointed.

so why don't these young whipper snappers try to say something to energize me rather than just insult me?

[gratefultobelib]

50. He was sharing the guilt. He did nothing more than vote, too. I should have made that clearer.

[Breeze54]

60. Scratch that ... I looked at the wrong time in the wrong post.

Go edit it before the angry mob shows up with pitchforks!!

:rofl:

[gratefultobelib]

113. Too late! I just tried. I've never started a thread before except in the book

forum, so I'm still learning. Now I'm feeling bad because I totally misrepresented this young man today and he was so earnest. Oh well, this experience has not dimmed my enthusiasm one whit!

[Breeze54]

115. I looked at the wrong post for the time, thinking it was the OP.... but

for future reference, you have 1 hour after you post, to edit.

I should have drawn a line through what I posted in the body but I thought it was funny! :P

:hi:

[Bluebear]

63. Note to "young volunteer": stick to handing out leaflets & put the microphone down

The way to rally people is not to lecture them inappropriately.

[gratefultobelib]

114. This is my fault. I started the thread and can't go back and edit it. Too late and I'm new at

starting threads. The young man was using himself as an example of what NOT to do. He admitted he was one who only voted and did nothing else. He wasn't lecturing us; he was rallying us to get involved.

[EFerrari]

151. Go back and tell him that he's go the right idea but the wrong approach.

People are generally great and they respond much better to positive statements than to shame and blame. :)

[YvonneCa]

67. There is enough blame to go ...

...around. I said something similar about Gore in 2000...and did more than vote in 2004. Lesson learned. I will do more than just vote for the rest of my life.

I'm not sure telling this to volunteeers is the best way to motivate them, though. :)

[dsc]

73. that is totally ludricrious

Both Gore and Kerry only contested a few states in those elections and if you didn't live in or near one of those, then aside from votes and money you really couldn't do much else. In 2004, I lived in NC, where Kerry decided not to contest. I wasn't able to give money as I was just getting started at a new job and off a move. I did canvas for Bowles for Senate, he lost.

[fudge stripe cookays]

80. I busted my ass for Howard Dean.

I'd never been political before. But after Bush got elected, reprehensor and I lost all our friends. Everyone we knew was brainwashed.

We went to a Peter Gabriel concert, and suddenly, there were people like US walking around! Liberals coming out of the woodwork! Then a couple of weeks later, an online friend suggested that we go see Dean speak in Dallas.

I signed up for every list that I could. I collected signatures to get him on the ballot, I went to meetups, I canvassed, I started my own meetup group in Rockwall County to appeal to folks in East Texas who thought it was too far to drive into Dallas for one.

I traveled to Iowa TWICE, once canvassing in 8 degrees (let me remind everyone that I'm a native Texan, and anything below 20 makes me nervous).

All that, and the fuckers still stole the election. I wanted to crawl in a hole and hibernate, I was so miserable and sick. 6 months later, I got diagnosed with MS. While all my friends were carpooling down to Crawford, I sat in my air conditioned house plugging myself full of steroids and beginning Betaseron injections. I couldn't have handled the heat.

I also would have dropped everything to go to New Orleans and help out there, but I would have melted in the heat. There is no way I could have survived without ending up in the hospital myself.

To any little pissant, finger-pointing volunteer, I have been where you are, and done what you're doing, and I'll tell you flat out....KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF! You're only pissing off people and making them feel alienated. There are ways to appeal to everyone, and you don't know what the fuck you're doing.

There, I feel better.
fsc

[DRoseDARs]

93. & if all u do is bitch about those who did only that, then u really HAVEN'T been listening to Obama.

Obama is NOT one for guilt-tripping or chastising others for not being patriotic enough. That's the Republicans' schtick, you schmuck.*



*This wasn't directed at you, gratefultobelib, but at the little asshole you heard that bile from.

[polichick]

94. imo the point made was more important than being a little "inartful" in making it...

As someone who has worked for decades trying to elect Democrats, I don't like to see people blasting the young ones who are getting involved this time. We need their energy and passion as much as they need our experience and wisdom.

When I'm surrounded with Obama employees and volunteers of all ages, I'm so hopeful I could cry ~ and sometimes this song comes to mind. Just wanted to share...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pphVs8bF0

[McCamy Taylor]

95. Bush was not elected. He stole the election. Some of us were working so he could not do that

either by trying to increase Kerry's votes or decrease the ease with which the GOP could commit election fraud or both. But it took the blatantly stolen election for most Americans to believe what a minority of us had been warning them about.

It was hard to fault people for not understanding that Bush and Rove were worse than Nixon crooks before the 2004 election--unless they were from Texas. All Texans knew that. we knew that before 2000 but few would listen.

[baldguy]

104. 2004 was stolen, just like 2000.

Sounds a little like blaming the victim to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. I was more active in 2004 than ever in my life

I door knocked both before and on Election Day. In fact, I spent all day Election Day going door to door in the cold--till 8PM, when the polls closed.

Then I went home and watched the returns--and saw Kerry conceding before some people had even finished voting.

[BlueIris]

112. As someone who happily destroyed her life (and her health and finances) for the effort last time, I

used to feel this way. And a part of me is still incredibly resentful of the lazy jerks who could have done a lot more to try to get Kerry's election recognized and didn't, because they didn't know or care about him or the fact that their own lives were on the line.

Now that I know how incredibly difficult a sacrifice volunteer work is, and what enormous courage it takes to make the efforts I made in '04, '05, and '06, I'm less critical of those who didn't support in the way I felt I should. A person can't change the world by destroying herself, and those who had to stop their support at taking the time to vote did something meaningful, too. Not everyone has the guts (or the resources) to tear their lives apart for a cause, even one as vitally important as John Kerry's presidential campaign. So, let's not abuse fellow Democratic voters whose support is also needed this time around.

[Hekate]

117. I've read sillier statements here on DU, but these young'uns need schooling. nt

[book_worm]

123. This person is young and idealistic and hopefully won't insult anymore people.

[blues90]

131. that's insane , completely insane

Simple minded crap . Lets hear your plan if they decide to steal the election this time in 2008. What are you going to do , toss unite for change posters at them?

What we got was Kerry claiming/ promising all the votes would be counted and they were not , this is what we got for trusting a candidate. The same damn thing happened in 2006 with that lame assed 6 for 06 slogan.

If the people were going to do anything it does not have to be always during an election , we are going on 8 long years and have done nothing and now here we have Obama supporters that are going to do what?

You have a plan lets hear it , I might join in on it as long as I don't have to carry some lame ass slogan around.

[Better Believe It]

132. That's Absolute Nonsense

Kerry ran an ineffective and weak campaign. He did not take on Bush and his policies.

I'm not responsible for that.

Nor are you.

[ContraBass Black]

141. I don't "share that guilt,"

But I still find the suggestion disgustingly self-righteous.

[LWolf]

142. Bullshit.

Considering that I wasn't exactly thrilled with his nomination, or his campaign, the fact that I held my nose and voted for him was a gift.

I share no guilt for his loss. I lay the blame on election fraud, myself. That and a less than efficient campaign.

And I'd take Kerry over Obama any day of the week.

I'll be active for the candidates that I actually WANT to vote FOR; there will be a couple on my ticket this time around.

If Obama doesn't win, it will be because he lost too many votes from the Democratic left, the independent left, and the 3rd party left, while the republicans he cozied up to didn't vote for him.

That, and the fact that Congress has still not adequately addressed guaranteeing clean elections and valid vote counts.

Edited to add:

In '04, I busted my ass for Dennis Kucinich, and never regretted it. When the convention convened, I was done. I gave my vote, and still consider that enough.

[Political Heretic]

146. Campaign 101 from a former campaign manager - you never accuse your potential vontuneers.

In the long run, you can never successfully guilt people into sustained volunteer effort.

Eventually, they will get over their guilt, or they will resent and become defensive toward those who are accusing them.

You want to make your potential volunteers feel like each and every one of them them are just the person you've been waiting for, treat them like dedicated activists, encourage their enthusiasm, even if you know they've been nothing but talk in the past) and then develop with your volunteer coordinator a good plan of subtle accountability so you can help keep your volunteers involved and on task.

[csziggy]

147. I worked my ass off for the Kerry campaign and went to my first Obama campaign meeting Wednesday

I can't work as many hours or as hard now as I did in 2004 but I will do what I can.

My first time voting in a Presidential race was in 72 as a 20 year old. I was so convinced that Noxin's people stole the election through dirty tricks I did not vote in another election until after I got married in 77. I have not missed voting in a single election since that I could physically make it to the polls.

[puerco-bellies]

149. I was a Kerry precinct captain in 2004

That little pup can pound sand.

[Radical Activist]

185. Then obviousy the comment wasn't about you

since you did more than vote. Why rush to get offended?

[puerco-bellies]

199. At that time I was single and living alone.

Most people with a family can't devote the time to do more then vote. A snot nosed child would not understand.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

150. I did a lot more than that. I suppose he has a point, but I blame the Bush voters a lot more. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

155. Hmm

I was 19 in 1992 and voted Clinton/Gore. It was a no brainer. Why? Things were point blank - really shitty. I wanted to know that I would have a job when I graduated in a few years.

I think these 'little pups' are not being coddled to per se - I think they are worried - and justifiably so. . . that they will be facing a mountain of student loans and no way to pay them off.

And as for this 'specific individual' - it's the arrogance of youth . . . though I don't believe I was ever THAT arrogant. They don't get that many of us do nothing but 'vote' and 'give financially' to a campaign are also involved in the peace movement, working to keep focus on Darfur, down at the Food Bank on Saturdays lending a hand, and balancing a high powered position along with your health, etc. etc. Life hasn't really 'hit' many of them yet - so a little a empathy and tongue clucking is probably the best course of action. ;-)

[Radical Activist]

187. It didn't sound like the statement was about

older people who are involved in those things you mention. It was about anyone who DIDN'T get more involved.
I think people who turned this into an age issue are insecure about growing older.

[LanternWaste]

165. Always good to know that when the chips are down...

Always good to know that when the chips are down, we Progressives and Democrats will still lay both guilt and blame at each others feet, slowing us from reaching those who actually and factually are filled with guilt and blame.

[mod mom]

176. I say BS and I worked nearly full time from May to November for Kerry in Central Ohio.

Huge numbers of voters were disenfranchised before even looking into the voting machines that were not verifiable. Just like Al Gore in 200, John Keryy in 2004 and perhaps Obama in 2008 , until we have Dem leadership who will stand up for their voters, until we have more people willing to get into the streets in protest, we will continue to see votes flipped and unusual, fraudulent outcomes. I wonder how many here think this cabal will just quietly fade away just because Obama is popular and leading in the polls.

[pollo poco]

178. smug self righteous bullshit

Good thing the brat didn't say that to me.

I'd have looked at the clothes on his/her back and suggested that wearing clothes equals supporting international slavery.

I hope this isn't the new fashion- young people who find everyone else wanting.

Spare me your sophomoric ravings until you have had a piece of supporting yourself in this shit for more than a year or two.

Grow the f*** up.

"He jests at scars who never felt a wound."

Self righteousness has no age minimum.

[Radical Activist]

184. So you think voting is enough?

You think that's all a person should do?

[DRoseDARs]

198. You think it's YOUR place to call others' patriotism into question? That's the Repukes' schtick. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

197. Oh gawd.

[nam78_two]

200. Groan-these generation wars are so dumb

Signed by someone who is 30 and worked very hard in 2004.


Seriously, must we always find ways to divide ourselves like this? I think the Bush voters and voter fraud are guilty.

Edit: Not sure why this is even a generation war since it seems to be about politcally active versus inactive people. Anyway, I think all this infighting is counter-productive..