With friends like these.

[Julien Sorel]

Last week, we had the giant flap over Kerry's statement that he believes his IWR vote was correct. There were, what, 30 threads started attacking him for that? More? All of them had the same theme: Kerry is a sellout, Kerry is a weakling, Kerry is pro-war, Kerry doesn't have the guts to stand up to Bush, there's no difference between Kerry and Bush, I'm going to take my ball and go home.

Now, we have the flap over Kerry's condemnation of the Move-on ads. It is, a few people are indignantly telling us, a slap in the face, a repudiation of everything Move-on has tried to do for Kerry, a sign that Kerry is weak, that he doesn't have the guts to stand up to Bush, that he's dumb, blah blah blah. We're up to, I think four threads on that topic; who knows how many more there will be.

Personally, I think a lot of these threads are motivated by resentment because Kerry won and your guy/girl didn't. Well, guess what. There's an election going on out there, and it will have a vital impact on the future of this country. Kerry wants to win it far more than any of you want him to win it -- that much I think everyone can agree on. We saw what happened to the attacking candidates in the primary, so did Kerry. We've seen Bush spend tens of millions of dollars on ads attacking Kerry, it looks like a complete waste of money at this point.

If you want to criticize Kerry, fine. But as least try to make sure your criticisms have some reasoning behind them. Your opinion that Kerry is going to lose because he refuses to run his campaign the way Howard Dean ran his isn't going to move a lot of people who saw the fate of Dean's campaign. It will, however, piss a lot of people off who want Bush gone, and who see your constant carping and sniping as an impediment to that goal.

[MercutioATC]

1. I think it's bullshit, but a good political move, strategically.

Since I'm voting for him regardless, I don't have a problem with it.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Yea. Enough Flip-Flopping

Convention is over. Nomination done. Lets stick to our candidate.

[Bread and Circus]

32. This is a discussion board last time I checked, and is not paid for...

by "Kerry for President".

Frankly, if people think Kerry is out to lunch, then they should say so. Otherwise, this board is useless and boring.

Why not just go to a "Free Speech Zone" if people don't want to be heard, eh?

[Zhade]

35. Hell, it's not even solely for the Democratic party.

Some ignore this fact, however.

My problem with the whole "make your criticism reasonable" thing is, who gets to decide the criteria for what's reasonable?

[Xipe Totec]

51. Pretty Simple, Really

If someone flames the Republicans it is reasonable.

If someone flames the Democratic candidate for president, then it is unreasonable. Let's keep the eye on the prize, people.

[Zhade]

59. Sure, flaming Kerry isn't called for here.

The difference lies in one's interpretation.

If I point out that Kerry voted for the war, it's a flame. When I point out that some Republican voted for the war, it's a legitimate criticism.

Same bill, same vote, different conclusion. That's unreasonable.

[Julien Sorel]

60. As has been pointed out numerous times,

Kerry didn't vote for the war. You know this, yet continue to "point it out." Contextually, knowing the kind of reaction "pointing something out" will get you makes such "pointing out" inflammatory, you innocent little pointer outer you.

[Xipe Totec]

64. In A War Everybody Shoots

But you are expected to try to shoot the enemy and avoid hitting your own troops.

There's enough people on the Republican side attacking Kerry and pointing out his weaknesses. I think that we can trust them to do a thorough and efficient job of flaming our guy. Anyone that thinks the Republicans are not doing a good job of trashing Kerry are free to pitch in and lend them a hand.

But not on this board. :think:

[Bread and Circus]

68. 4 legs good, two legs bah-ah-ah-ah-ad

[Xipe Totec]

69. So You've Read Animal Farm

Let me see if I understood your analogy.

Republicans are our human masters.

Democrats are sheep.

The democratic leadership are pigs duping sheep into working against their own self interest by endlessly repeating Democratic talking points.

Once the Democrats are in power the pigs will sell the sheep down the river because they're no better than the human masters who were in power before, so what's the use in defeating them.

Did I get it right, or did I misunderstand your message?

If I'm right, it doesn't sound like you agree with, or support the objectives of the Democratic Underground at the moment. Which would beg the question: Why are you here?

[Julien Sorel]

70. FD is a good guy.

I don't know what his beef with Kerry is, but he's made some first rate contributions here in his time.

[Xipe Totec]

71. Thanks For Vouching For Him, BB

I don't know him from Adam. I'm a newbie.

It would have been preferable for 'FD' to retract, qualify, or explain, but that's not so important in the grand scheme of things.

What really matters is maximizing the chances of Kerry regaining the White House, and postponing the criticism until after we have clinched the election. If Kerry does not get elected, I won't mater much whether we liked his policies or liked him personally. We will be doomed.

Keep up the good work. I like your posts, even if I don't always agree.
:dem:

(edited for spelling)

[Bread and Circus]

73. Well.....I think the point about 4 legs good, two legs bad is...

to be very wary of in-group/out-group bias.

I am a doctor. I have a degree in psychology and sociology. The power of in-group/out-group bias is very strong. It can cloud a person's vision, almost entirely.

Yes, there is a big difference between conservative goals/ideals and those of liberals. However, the Republican POLITICAL Party and the Democratic POLITICAL Party are both about the control and flow of power and money. People need to be careful not to confuse the goals of Democrats with The Party and its Figureheads.

Right now, I am speaking out against Kerry because he is basically going back on that which finally sealed his nomination - the co-opting of strong talk against Bush (originally Dean's message). Dean, Kucinich, CMB, and Sharpton deserve the most credit on this. Clark deserves some credit as well but he made a lot of campaign mistakes, abandoned a lot of his Draft Clarkers (me included), and hired the wrong people. Nonetheless, Kerry squeaked it out because they caught Saddam and no other reason.

I have been a booster of Kerry for a while, trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I will vote for him but I am tired of the duplicitousness, mealymouthness, and wishywashyness of Democratic Party Figureheads.

I am not a bomb thrower or a barn burner. Kerry is 3 zillion times better than Bush in about a dozen ways. That doesn't mean he is above criticism, though. And feet need to be held to the fire.

P.S. If I really thought what I said on DU influenced anything, I wouldn't be so bold. However, I take this to be a discussion board, not a campaign site.

Also, Billy Bunter is one of my favorite DU'ers along with French4Clark and Democrat Turned Hawk. We fought the good fight for Clark here on DU. I date back to June 2003 on DU when Clark was just a twinkle in John Hlinko's eye.

[Xipe Totec]

50. Quote from Message Board Rules

<snip>

Excerpt from SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION:

"Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop."

Excerpt from DU and the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary:

"In the general election, Democratic Underground will strongly support whoever wins the Democratic presidential nomination.
We consider every single Democratic candidate to be highly qualified and fit to serve as president of the United States. Furthermore, we consider every single Democratic candidate to be a vast improvement over the current White House resident. The Democratic nominee will have our support."

The Primaries Are Over. Kerry is the Nominee. Lets help him get elected. Yes, this IS the Kerry For President board for the next ten weeks.

[lastknowngood]

3. If it weren't for Dean no one it the Dem party would have said boo

to shrub about the damn war or anything else. If you don't like Dean fine, but don't expect people who care to not get mad when we see the same damn strategy which has lost us the elections for the last 12 years. If you think America is going to choose someone who is a
gentleman over someone who is aggressive, you need to look around.

[enigmatic]

4. Damn, the Republicans won the majority vote in Presidential Elections..

in 1992, 1996, and 2000???? I gotta read more..

[ikojo]

8. No, the pugs didn't win those presidential

elections but they sure did a good job of winning the house and senate. They did it by being aggressive.

Just because people on Democratic UNDERGROUND complain about how they perceive Kerry's campaign does not mean they are not going to vote for Kerry. He has my vote. Nothing will change that. We cannot take four more years of Bush that is for sure. I think people are scared that Kerry appears to be playing too nice in Bush's sandbox. In the world he and Bush come from nice gets you NOWHERE. It may be the higher ground but it is not the winning ground and I think that is what worries people.

If we can't disagree amongst family then who can we disagree with?

[enigmatic]

10. This isn't disagreeing...

It's the same people screaming at the top of their lungs at every move Kerry has made since he won the nomination, despite the fact that he's ahead in every major poll except for Gallup (and we know how reliable THEY are..)and is pulling away in some key states that W won in 2000.

Nobody here is being pollyanna-esque about Kerry winning in November, but Jesus, the unrelenting negativity coming from people in regards to the way Kerry is running his campaign despite all evidence showing that it's working is unbelieveable.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

It's a Handful of People

All the usual suspects. (And some disruptors.) The regulars know.

:eyes:

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

54. Dupe Post (eom)

[gatorboy]

5. I thought Clinton did win 12 years ago.

At least that's what I heard :D

[Julien Sorel]

7. I hadn't realized we lived in a binary world:

one can be "aggressive," or one can be a "gentleman."

Politicians have been fighting for longer than you, or Howard Dean, or John Kerry, have been alive. Dean didn't invent the concept of fighting, and if you knew anything about Kerry, you'd know that Kerry knows how to fight and fight dirty. He also knows how not to make an ass of himself in the process.

[blondeatlast]

9. Al Gore won the vote in 2000, friend.

And he was quite the gentleman--but he still won.

[Wheelie_Alex]

16. Gore was lucky to squeeze through a win in the popular vote.

The election should not have even been close. It should never have come down to a recount in Florida. Gore had every advantage going in.
To use a football analogy he had a two touchdown lead at the start of the fourth quarter and allowed Bush to pull almost even (in the popular vote).

[janx]

44. The two are not mutually exclusive.

;-) Dean is very much a gentleman. A smart one.

But I think that Kerry's statements about this have been a bit diluted by the campaign and very twisted by the right wing. He was much more forceful about the matter before his nomination. That happens.

[Xipe Totec]

52. If it weren't for Nader We Wouldn't Be in This Mess

A lot of angry Floridians voted for Nader out of principle, or for Buchanan by mistake. Let's not turn Dean into the Nader of the 2004 election. I like the guy personally, but he self-destructed before I even got a chance to vote him in the primaries. Dean has declared his support for Kerry. It would be nice if his supporters did the same. It's not enough to just say: "Well, I hate the wishy-washy SOB, and if he just acted more like Dean I'd be happier, but what choice do I have?"



"God, protect me from my friends! I'll deal with the enemies myself!"
- Spanish Proverb

[no name no slogan]

72. Oh put a sock in the "Nader cost Gore the election" BS already

It's been argued ad infinitum here for the last four years, and there's STILL those who somehow think Nader was responsible for Gore's campaign and that Nader appealed equally to Dems and Republicans.

But if you must blame Nader, why not blame those 300,000 FL DEMOCRATS who voted for Dubya, instead. WTF were THEY thinking? If Gore couldn't even appeal to his OWN party, why should we think he could appeal to ANYBODY else?

:shrug:

[Xipe Totec]

74. If 300,000 FL DEMOCRATS voted for Dubya in 2000

Its because Gore went too far to the left of center in order to please the 'More-Liberal-Than-Thou' Democratic left. A position he only had to take because Nader was pealing away support on the left, same as he is doing now, and same as the die-hard Dean Democrats seem to be doing now. If the left keeps undermining Kerry on every issue because Kerry does not do what their favorite alternative candidate would have done, we're going to end up with Bush in the White House again. :think:



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein :silly:

[Mick Knox]

6. I'll be a good sheeple

and wont say another thing.

Promise.

NOT.

If I see BS, whether from chimp mcduck or Kerry, I'm calling it.

Period.

[Placebo]

11. I Think You're Making a Case For a Moot Subject...

People aren't pissed that Kerry won instead of their candidate.
People are going to vote for Kerry no matter WHAT he does between now and November 2nd.

If we can't self-criticize on a DEMOCRATIC website, where the hell can we?

[Julien Sorel]

14. I don't think you were here for the primary wars.

Had you been, and had you seen the posts from some of these people who are now "criticizing" Kerry, you'd be a little more suspicious of their motives.


Criticism is fine, necessary even, but this board is becoming inundated with bitter chicken littles who want to chew the same piece of grain over and over again. Much of the criticism is simply stupid, yet those threads end up stretching for miles. How many threads did we have that started "OMG, Kerry is for the Iraqi war."? Dozens of them. Yet Kerry didn't say he was for the war, and even if he had, there was no need for 30+ time wasting, energy sucking threads debating the topic. Now we have the Move-on thing. It's a waste of time and energy, and only serves to frustrate people. Is that constructive criticism?

[Placebo]

15. I Wasn't a Member During the Primaries, That Is True...

So you may indeed be right, but I would hope the members of DU have more depth than that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Think Some Of These People Want Kerry To Lose So

They Can Say They Told Us So...


Kerry wasn't my first choice in the primaries but he is now...

[Guaranteed]

23. Nope, not at all.

We simply have very different ideas of what gets votes.

I prefer someone that simply tells the truth, and you prefer someone who hides behind medals and says the opposite of what he supposedly thinks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Kerry Probably Thinks Bush Is A Total Fuvking Iditot Like 99% of The

People on this board.....


If Kerry said that I would think he's a total fucking idiot...


Point out the error of my ways....

[Guaranteed]

27. Calling someone a total fucking idiot is an ad hominem

attack. Those are useless. It's like saying "Screw you!"

However, you can certainly attack his character STRONGLY without being an "idiot." In fact, the success of the tactic can not be denied. It's very effective.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

56. It's Interesting That You Felt Compelled to Respond to DSB

Did you think he was referring to you?

:eyes:

DTH

[ibegurpard]

18. Yeah, he probably missed YOUR end of it as well.

You really aren't the person to be preaching about how people behaved during the primaries.

[Julien Sorel]

19. Who's preaching?

I think you need to re-read the post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I Supported Clark-Big Time....

because I felt he gave us the best chance to beat Bush...

[ibegurpard]

25. So?

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the person that started this thread being one of the biggest jerks I can think of during the primary.

[Julien Sorel]

26. And I fail to see what

your crying because you ran into a bigger jerk has to do with this thread.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

58. You Completely Missed His Point

Your comment is also pretty much irrelevant to his point.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Exactly Right

I'm glad you're posting again, BB!

DTH

[MoonRiver]

12. I don't buy the other candidates or true believers theories.

I think these are Repuke infiltrators.

[Placebo]

13. Since When Did Questioning What the Dem Candidate Does...

Make you a REPUBLICAN? :crazy:

That's just nutty.

It's the REPUBLICANS who follow their precious candidate right or wrong.

[RetroLounge]

20. Strawman set up, strawman insulted

Your post(s) would carry more weight if you dropped the chip off your shoulder about those who supported other candidates.

"Personally, I think a lot of these threads are motivated by resentment because Kerry won and your guy/girl didn't"

So what explains your resentments?

RL

[Julien Sorel]

21. I should charge money for this.

The fallacy of straw man involves putting forth a weak version of your opponent's argument and demolishing it. Since I indicated the one argument I did put forward was weak, it's kind of hard to call that an example of straw man, since highlighting the weakness of the argument was the point in the first place.

Someone who actually understood rhetorical logic could make the argument that I committed the fallacy of hasty generalization, or hasty conclusion -- had I not included the weasel phrase "a lot of them," and had I not clearly indicated it was my opinion (it's almost as if I've done this before). I just don't think you're the person to make that argument.

[Guaranteed]

30. I think you mean you attacked their character.

Yet another logical fallacy. Especially since you were just wrong.

[Julien Sorel]

34. Errrr

Attacking someone's character is not a fallacy unless it's done in place of an argument.

Next?

[Guaranteed]

49. I thought that was what ya did LOL.

In any case, character attacks create logical fallacies when used as PART of an argument- not "in place" of an argument.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Guaranteed]

29. Some fail to see the connection between the candidate

people supported and their ideas of what makes a good campaign.

It shouldn't be any surprise that Dean supporters don't like the fact that Kerry won't criticize Bush. THAT'S WHAT DEAN *DID*.

[ulysses]

28. of course you do.

Personally, I think a lot of these threads are motivated by resentment because Kerry won and your guy/girl didn't.

[borat sagdiyev]

31. Voting for Kerry isnt enough is it?

Now everyone must think Kerry's campaign is perfect, without question?
People criticize Kerry's horrible campaign because they want him to win. NOT LOSE.

[depakid]

33. Seems to me you're the one hung up on the primaries

and still taking swipes at Dean supporters.

What I've read here are usually very valid concerns reflecting a real fear that Kerry is running a Dukakis style campaign (which, as I recall, he promised not to). In the opinion of many here (at least those who buck the notion that Kerry can do no wrong and that Tad Devine is a genius) the campaign could do better. People want desperately for Kerry to win- and those of us who are old enough or who have studied these things, been involved in campaigns, managed the press or done some marketing have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, as you note- the Kerry campaign isn't the Dean campaign- they are a very top down organization- which often leads to group think and reluctance to change. That is a legitimate worry- particularly in light of the history and track record of so called "high road" campaigns.

My question is that if Kerry's momentum stalls and the Republicans pull some trick out of their hats, will they be able to admit that they were wrong and start going after Bush. Moreover, if they do decide to, will it be too late?

[enigmatic]

36. Yes. And if Kerry..

continues to run the exact same campaign that has him in the lead of every major poll outside of Gallup (which is a joke to begin with..)and has him pulling away in the key battleground states Florida and Pennsylvania and wins in November, will those who keep repeating that Kerry is running a losing race finally admit they were wrong, wrong, wrong?

[Julien Sorel]

40. A few.

Some of them will disappear, and some of them will claim he would have won even bigger if he'd only followed their strategy. And some will be bitterly disappointed.

[depakid]

43. Polls mean little at this stage

Ask Dukakis or Howard Dean.

Even if they were telling, considering the Bush record, the fact that Kerry's not way ahead should give you a hint that this "strategy" is adequate, at best. If Kerry manages to pull off the election- using proven losing methods and if he has the coattails that SHOULD be associated with this miserable failure of an administration, I'll be the first to happily admit he was wrong.

Unfortunately, the evidence at this point suggests the opposite.

[enigmatic]

46. As others have said..

Sorry, I don't see any evidence that shows that he's going to lose in November by doing what he's doing. W's has spent 2 months hitting Kerry with smear after smear and Kerry is still ahead in the polls and comfortably ahead in the EC; I don't see the doom and gloom.

And Dukakis was probably the worst Dem PC im my lifetime; comparing him and Kerry is ridiculous, IMO.

[depakid]

48. I compared the campaigns

not the men. And from what I see, the two campaigns are following a similar pattern- they both allowed their candidates to get Gored without counter attacking.

[Myrina]

37. Amen and pass the tequila

I'm so sick of people posting stupid sh*t like 'you're just mad because your candidate didn't win' ... well, neener neener jelly beaner, I got to pick the teams for kickball at recess and you didn't, so there ! :-P

Grow the heck up !! This is still an open discussion forum, and the First Amendment still applies and if my MOTHER were running for President and did something I thought was stupid, I would call her on it.

If Kerry can't hold up under the criticisms of his own party, he doesn't stand a chance in he*l when Rove starts playing hardball with him next month.

Sheesh :eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

39. Well, we all have our opinions.

Unfortunately, as you note- the Kerry campaign isn't the Dean campaign- they are a very top down organization- which often leads to group think and reluctance to change. That is a legitimate worry- particularly in light of the history and track record of so called "high road" campaigns.

Kerry is certainly not running a "high road" campaign. He simply wants to make it look that way. That's how elections are won. That's why most of the carping done here is so astonishingly foolish.

I can't resist a little chuckle over someone who implies Dean's campaign was somehow flexible, considering he lost because he couldn't afford to change his message for fear of alienating the people who insisted on an angry man for a candidate. But that's another argument for another day.

My question is that if Kerry's momentum stalls and the Republicans pull some trick out of their hats, will they be able to admit that they were wrong and start going after Bush. Moreover, if they do decide to, will it be too late?

I had been under the impression that they have been attacking. Critical press releases, speeches -- the campaign has certainly been doing it. Just what constitutes "going after Bush" to you? And if the Kerry campaign adopted whatever standards you set for "going after Bush," and then their poll numbers went south and their negatives went up, what would happen then? Would it be because he didn't attack early enough, or loud enough, or he should have included Pickles in the attack, or he should have let loose with a howl or two, or what? Because I know it would be something. You watched one candidate evaporate because all he did was attack; now you want another candidate to adopt the same method.

[depakid]

47. We do

and mine is based on evidence of what has worked and what has failed in past elections, as well as my experience in various organizations. Simply asserting that "high road" campaigns win doesn't make it so. Name one national campaign that's been successful using that strategy.

With respect to the Dean campaign, if you were to take a management class like, say, organizational development (OD) you'd see that effective organizations- adaptive organizations- follow a pattern of bottom-up communication, listening to feedback from street level employees as well as "customers." top down organizations don't do that, and frequently suffer from inefficiencies and losses for doing so. Some go out of business.

I had been under the impression that they have been attacking. Critical press releases, speeches -- the campaign has certainly been doing it. Just what constitutes "going after Bush" to you?

"Critical press releases" that the media ignores in favor right wing spin are virtually useless in terms of countering impressions formed by the general public. Speeches are better- if they include a sound bite that the media will air. otherwise, they too are virtually worthless. The Republicans understand that repetition of a message- even a false one, works. That's why they do it. Uncountered, the image sticks- flip-flopped, raised taxes 300 plus times, you name it.

Bush has such an appalling record on every issue that matters that it's insane not to use it against him- to hammer him in factual "negative" ads that simply detail his actions and show him in an unfavorable light. God knows, he's given the Democrats more ammunition and more moronic video clips than any candidate in history! Yet the Kerry "strategists" have thus far failed to use them- because they want to "stay positive."

I'm sorry, but that's just not smart-

[Julien Sorel]

53. OK

and mine is based on evidence of what has worked and what has failed in past elections, as well as my experience in various organizations. Simply asserting that "high road" campaigns win doesn't make it so. Name one national campaign that's been successful using that strategy.

You are insisting on putting words in my mouth. To quote myself: "Kerry isn't running a high road campaign; he simply wants to make it look that way." I should probably add, "for now," because when the time comes, I have no doubt Kerry will spend more money on negative ads (25% of his budget has been on negative ads to date) -- should it be necessary. Kerry had to start by introducing himself to the public; running a bunch of negative ads is a piss-poor way to do that.


The rest of your post is just a series of your opinions, which I'm not going to bother with. At least, until I've taken a few more organizational management classes.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. I Love Dean

It follows logically that the people most critical of Kerry would be the people who didn't support him at the start. While I certainly don't think that group is limited to Dean supporters, the handful of individuals who stick out like a sore thumb in terms of over-the-top (IMO) criticism of Kerry HERE have got to be at least 75% former Dean supporters.

Dean has been fantastic since the primaries, and I have so much respect for him. And most of his supporters have been great.

I absolutely agree that a few of them just cannot get over the primaries, however, and I believe some of that small subset seem like they'd rather have Kerry lose so they can say "I told you so," than for him to win.

You know that stupid saying some of them use: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." It's lies and fiction and self-delusion.

DTH

[madfloridian]

63. See, that is what I mean.

You are calling names without calling names. It is hurtful and it is childish. It hurts.

Are we not supposed to question? I am dead set against this war, because it is so obviously a war of imperialism. Bush knew it, Kerry knows it, we know it, even my neighbors know it now.

Why pretend differently? It is not Dean's fault.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. Question Away

And it's certainly not my intention to hurt anyone except perhaps the half-dozen or so people who I specifically have in mind. Of which you DEFINITELY are NOT one.

And I'm absolutely not blaming Dean; I'm blaming the half-dozen or so people who consistently spout utter nonsense and contribute zero to the discussion except negativity.

I don't normally weigh in on matters like these, because I do view them as counter-productive, for the most part. I guess in this instance, I was as frustrated as BB, after reading some of the negativity lately. When I get like that, sometimes discretion gives way to bluntness. And then as always, I call 'em like I see 'em.

DTH

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[greenohio]

42. Vote on which principle?

Most of us support Kerry for a key reason. For some, the reason is that he is a Democrat and the only way he will lose our vote is to switch parties. For others the reason is that he is not $hrub, if Kerry started endorsing Bush's policies and saying what a great guy he was, he would lose their vote.

There are some who plan to vote for Kerry because of his apparent opposition to the war in Iraq. When he switched/clarified this position, he pissed off that group.

There are many other principles for which people are voting for Kerry (environment, taxes, health care, reproductive rights). As he moderates/clarifies his stance on these, be prepared for people to get pissed off.

If he stepped on your principle, you'd be PO'd too.

I just hope he's done clarifying.

[Hooper]

65. Clarity

You don't want Kerry to elucidate on his stand on issues? You are not worried that you and he will be on opposite sides of the spectrum on key issues? If you are voting for Kerry only because he is not Bush, I understand the mind set. Otherwise, I want to know as much about a candidates *clear* position on matters that are important to me as I can.

[madfloridian]

45. You are still reliving the primaries and Deanphobia.

When that kind of stuff stops, I think a lot will calm down.

You know I am voting for and donated to Kerry. However, there should never be a time in our country when our nominee does not take stands.

It is our job as citizens to be sure he does, not to back away in fear of offending the right wing.

[jonnyblitz]

61. you deanophobes need to realize something..

that some of us actually have issues with some Kerry's stances and it has NOTHING to do with "our guy didnt win the primary". If Dean were the nominee and he was into sending 40,000 more troops or pro Israel wall I would be bitching about HIM too...

[madfloridian]

62. Children on a school yard calling each other names.

That is what this is. There is whispering and huddling and hurt feelings. I know, I soothed a lot of those hurt feelings through the years.

You might as well call out names, call out supporters of Dean and others. We all know what you mean, and it does not help to try to hush fellow Democrats.

This is childish stuff. Our vote will still count even if we ask questions. Any candidate running for the highest office should be able to withstand criticism.

We were told that all the time during the primaries. We survived, Dean survived. We are not going to quit questioning.

[MoonRiver]

67. This needs another kick. Insightful posts shouldn't be quickly buried.

:kick: