Opinion: I'm glad the Dem candidates are attacking each other

[0rganism]

We, the voters, need to know if the candidates are serious, if they're willing to play hard and dirty to win. Are some of the criticisms entirely specious? OF COURSE THEY ARE. The job of the candidates, at this time, is to try anything and everything to bring down their opposition -- other Democrats, temporarily. Is it pretty? Hell no, but like Sharpton says, "if you can't beat me, how are you going to beat George Bush?"

We need a candidate who can attack Bush vigorously, relentlessly, and if need be, speciously. Also, the candidate has to be able to sense when an attack has lost strength, when it becomes "yesterday's news", so to speak.

More important than the attack is how the candidate responds to the attack. Does the candidate go on national TV and address the issue directly? Does the candidate scurry off into a dark corner and wait for the storm to pass? It's crucial that whatever approach is taken, the candidate appears unphased and capable. This is an important test of resilience.

Remember, whatever baseless slander is flung at your favorite Democrat today is peanuts compared to what any of the pack will face from the pukes after the nomination. Please don't take it personally, and please don't make it personal on this forum. This is between the candidates, and it's their chance to excel, be it offensively or defensively. Character and issue attacks are an essential part of the "meta-debate" between stump speeches, fund raisers, and broadcast debates. The stronger candidates will brush off those attacks and bounce right back with fire in the eyes and glistening fangs.

Screw unity, from now until the caucus accept and embrace the inevitable mudfight. And don't just cheerlead for your chosen candidate on this forum, either. Watch what they say, watch what they do, because this is your only chance to find out if they're up to the task of taking on the bush family media machine next October.

[hilzoy]

1. Partly right, partly so wrong.

I agree that we need to watch and see how the various candidates respond to attacks, since in all likelihood the nominee will face worse attacks than any Democrat is willing to dish out. I also agree that it's interesting to see which candidates are willing to 'try anything and everything to bring down their opposition', but only because I would be much less likely to vote for anyone who was. A candidate who is willing to resort to anything to get elected -- not just to fight hard, but to lie and cheat -- does not respect the electorate, and does not respect democracy. As a result, he forfeits my respect.

Naturally, I'm for Clark.

[rucky]

2. Wanna see what Democrats are willing to dish out?

Hang around DU for awhile.

Welcome!

:toast:

[hilzoy]

9. Thanks :)

[CWebster]

13. Team Clark just sends out the corps

to do the dirty work, so Clark can appear above the frey.

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. it does get silly sometimes

when issues get warpped out of focus but, i like to hear positives and negitives about alll the candidates. it's one of the reasons i come here.

before we make any purchase of an appliance or electronic, we check it out on epinions.com to read the reviews people have made. i find the best info comes from reading the negative reviews because they will illuminate any of the weaknesses or problems with the item. it's easy to get the positives but HONEST criticisms are more difficult to come by.

[RichM]

5. What's with the word "Naturally," here?

Nothing you said prior to that would make it "natural" that you'd be for Clark. Clark himself is plenty willing to "resort to anything to get elected" -- for example, trying to pretend he's a Democrat after voting for all the most disgusting rightwing Republican presidents in history. Or praising Bush & Rummy & all those other creeps, & writing triumphalist articles about the Iraq war, & now turning around to take opposite positions. :thumbsdown:

[hilzoy]

7. Naturally,

In that he has yet to attack any of his Democratic rivals. I also don't think he's pretending to be a Democrat. He hasn't voted Republican for 15 years, which means he hasn't voted for the single most disgusting rightwing Republican president in history, GWB. And if you actually read the Lincoln Day speech, a lot of it is about the need to engage with the rest of the world; he calls for things like providing drugs to treat AIDS in Africa.

[0rganism]

8. If a candidate lies & cheats too much, that itself is basis for an attack

but the other candidates have to be the ones who make it, at this point. They have to be willing to say, "Mr. X lied about this and that" on TV appearances. They have to be willing to hit low blows: "would you vote for someone who lies like Mr. X? Vote for me, Mr. Y, because I'm the only straight shooter in the race."

Taking the high road at all times will get Democrats CREAMED. It'll be 1972 all over again. For example, after the first debate when the media was throwing a hissy fit about "Gore sighed", he should have come right back with, "I sure as heck sighed, because George Bush LIED. He lied about this, that, and the other thing." Loud, public, and in the face, until the opposition doesn't even dare to bring it up anymore.

Never ever again should a Democrat let a lie go unaddressed: ALWAYS make an issue of the honesty of the source, especially if the source is an opposition candidate. If need be, take press time that would otherwise be used for explaining issues and explain how much of a deceitful campaign the opponent is running. Americans are short of attention span, and may not understand a complex issue explanation, but one thing we do understand fairly quickly is liars. 5 minutes spent explaining a budget plan to America is 4 minutes wasted. 5 minutes telling America exactly how your opponent lied about his budget plan is time well spent.

Al Franken has the right idea. Don't mince words, call liars for what they are and don't let up until you've thoroughly poisoned the well.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi hilzoy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LittleApple81]

3. Just a comment: I think Americans are starting to sound like

Rumsfeld... not in what we say but how we say it: ask a question and answer it ourselves.

[Forkboy]

4. How can you say that?

Let me tell you how... :D

[depakid]

6. Better to slug it out now, while few are paying attention

Lawyers have a saying about this- it's called "pulling the teeth of the tiger." If there's something nasty about a client or a witness, better it come out from your side. It weakens the opponents ability to use it against you.

I also agree that it's not only inevitable, but it's good practice for whoever the eventual candidate is, because as you mentioned it's peanuts compared the Republican smear machine. I think the Dean camp is particularly aware of that fact, and they've developed considerable skill in responding quickly and decisively to controversies. I have also observed that Dr. Dean is quite adept at learning from his mistakes and is farther ahead on the curve than Gen. Clark at this point, mainly by virtue of experience.

[0rganism]

10. Exactly! get 'em while 2/3 of Democrats can't even name 'em

Far better to trash a few reputations now than suffer "buyers remorse" next summer.

[CWebster]

12. This isn't serious, that is the problem,

The venom isn't directed at Bush, it is directed at each other and it is mean-spirited, deceptive and destructive to the cause of the Party, based on petty jealousies and ego gratification.

This is the ONLY way Bush will win - in a united Republican effort to portray the Democratic contenders as immature and juvenile who are incapable of rising above the leval of petty bickering. The Republicans sit back with a smug smile, hands folded across their bloated bellies and let the Democrats do all their dirty work.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Giggle, Giggle - Thank God For Bookmarks

CWebster, you are pretending like I don't remember all your nasty attacks on Kerry.

Here's one from July:

"Oh please John, can I call you that, Senator -or do you prefer to go by JFK?

You are a phony--an empty suit, always talking the talk, posturing, putting out a slick, well-groomed, distinguished appearance--forever broadcasting 30 year old stands taken to boast of current relevancy. Your medals don't impress me--or the entire mentality of honoring barbarism, as if it was something to be rewarded. My father fought and withessed the hell of war and he was a strong and intelligent man who didn't feel the need to play macho games on the one hand, and, at the same time, promote peace as a result of the horrors of the experience. But with all things, John, you want it both ways, you want to use it to strut your military credentials while you distribute snapshots with John Lennon to attest to your anti-war sentiments.

We can see through you and your aloof elitist upper-class airs."

[welshTerrier2]

14. Nope !!

I'm all for using the primaries to toughen up our candidates ... and I'm glad to say that I think all of our candidates have grown tremendously as they've gained more experience campaigning and debating ... but toughening should be focussed on real issues ... and that's not what we've been seeing ...

This idea of "survival of the fittest" can leave us with wounded candidates and the lack of a clear democratic message ...

I'll tell you what people know about the democrats who are running ... virtually the only thing they know is that our candidates are sniping at each other and sniping at bush ...

We are going to get killed in this next election, both for the White House and the Congress, if every candidate does not spend a significant amount of their time answering one simple question: why would the democrats make things better for americans ... more time needs to be spent advertising the democrats "common ground" ... you might call it sort of a "democratic platform" ...

While the press and the public are partly to blame, we have no clear message eminating from the party ... what little air time and coverage we're provided is taken up with bashing that does not appeal to voters ...

If we continue on this path, we're going to take a real beating next year ... and that is just not an option ... All of us, especially our candidates, need to have a greater vision beyond the campaign of any single candidate ...

[HFishbine]

17. I agree

But it goes beyond a need to evaluate how candidates respond under pressure, it's also about fully vetting our candidates. What "charges" stick? Which are frivolous?

I'd rather have every bit of crap, from the legitimate to the bogus tossed around now rather than find, after we've nominated our candidate, that there's some serious accusation the repukes can level at our nominee. It will be too late then to change our minds. Let's get it all out in the open now. It will be easier for us to coalless later if we a certain that we know what we need to know now.