Again: They would tear down ANY CANDIDATE WE PUT UP..

[vi5]

I believe this more than I have ever believed anything in my life. No matter which candidate we put up, either from the field of candidates we had or any we didn't, they would have been torn down by the repugs, their cronies and the media. Dean would be too unstable and tempermental....Clark would have had questions raised about Kosovo and his connections to Clinton.....Kucinich would have been too liberal and new agey...Leiberman would have presented no clear alternative to Bush and so on and so on.

And the other issue is that the dem party and base is so big tent and encompasses so many factions that no matter who we chose, for every group we would have picked up with another candidate, we would have lost others, thus making it a wash.

Dean and Kucinich might have gotten some more of the liberal base, but would have lost some of the moderates that Kerry is picking up. Even someone like Leiberman would have picked up some centrist dems and moderate republicans, but would lose a chunk of liberals.

We should have no "what ifs" at this point and no finger pointing. If we should happen to end up losing (and I'm still hopeful that we will not) there will be plenty of paper cuts of blame to go around. Some for the ignorant american public for being duped...a healthy helping to the compliant media...more than enough to the fanatical right wing for falling messianically behind a fool..liberals who didn't vote because they were seeking a moreal liberal purity which will never be found, and yes some to Kerry for the mistakes he may have made which are no better or worse than any candidate would have made, and still a billion times worse than Bush's foibles and flubs (which are somehow turned around by the media and his cronies as "charming").

So while I fall probably somewhere in the middle of hopeful or cynical, it mostly revolves around the state of the media in this country and the degree of gullibility and stupidity of a large part of the american public. But at this point the hopeful is still winning out over the defeated, if ever so slightly.

[Stew225]

1. If Jesus Christ were our candidate

they would consider him a long-haired hippie pacifist who would never be able to fight the war on terra. They would probably intimate that he was gay because he had no wife (at least not one that we know of).

You're right, they tear down people and do it too well!

[Arkana]

2. Never read "The Da Vinci Code?"

Jesus' wife is supposed to be Mary Magdalene.

[secular_warrior]

3. I place ALL of the blame squarely where it belongs : The Democratic Party

It is the job of the oppositon party to oppose, to present a strong, coherent, attractive alternative to the party in power. It is the job of a major political party to appeal to it's base first, to unite all factions towards a larger mission instead of trying to coopt the moderate factions of the other party's base with wishy washy 'stand for nothing' messages.

It is the job of a major political party to WIN with the media, the gullible masses -- whatever it takes. Democrats stood by for 30 years while their opponents built a massive media machine which now severely influences the mainstream media.

My point is we can't simply throw our hands up and cry about it, pointing blame at everything but our party whose job it is to win by any legal means neccessary, to stand up for us. If the Democrats don't stand up for the underdog who will? People from all over the country contributed their hard earned money for the Democrats to stand up and fight. Our side raised almost as much money as the vaunted GOP machine ! There is no excuse for the way this campaign has gone, no excuse for the wimpiness of the Democratic Party over the past 20+ years.

[vi5]

4. Right, which is why the instances when they do fight...

..are covered so fawningly by the media and given such respect by the general population.

I agree that the party has been less than perfect but I've not been so blind as to miss the fact that when they do stand up and when they do fight, that it's met with derision at worst, and indifference at best.

It's pure BS to put ALL the blame on their shoulders.

Where was this mythical base when it came time to cast votes for a candidate?

The main difference is that the far right still uses the system.

The far left people I know eschew the system altogether and trying to appeal to them at all costs is a losing proposition.

[secular_warrior]

12. Our job is to win. Period.

The world is not a perfect world of perfect Queensbury rules.

Politics and the struggle for power is messy, dirty and painful -- not neat, clean and delightful.

If the media and the powers that be goes against our side -- it is our side's fault for letting it happen, for not doing whatever it takes to beat the media and the powers that be.

If the system is too dirty and we won't stoop to the GOP's level -- then push for reform ! Reform the system so we can actually play a clean game and win. But one cannot try to play clean when the system is dirty.

The powers that be which hold us down don't care about being fair to us UNLESS WE MAKE THEM. There are no rules unless we force them to write rules. We are not guaranteed anything -- respect, fairness, kindness, nothing -- unless we FIGHT for it.

[sandersadu]

18. Secular Warrior

Totally agree w/ Secular Warrior. The job of the opposition party is to OPPOSE and lay out clear policies and fight for them.

This is going to be the subject of an entrepreneurial idea I have that will become clear over the next several months.

[Guaranteed]

21. WHEN do they fight?

That is, WHEN do they FIGHT without resorting to bullshit like "there is no war on terror" or "Bush set up 9/11" or "men should just shut up about abortion" or any of the other disenfranchising types of statements that the those in our party who ARE willing to fight typically make?

The TRUTH is that Dean had his shit DOWN: The war on terror is REAL. We WERE attacked on 9/11 by radical Muslim extremists. And BECAUSE OF THAT MORE THAN ANYTHING, invading Iraq was the STUPIDEST FUCKING IDEA EVER.

Now, THAT argument, made from the beginning, and consistently, would have KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF BUSH, because it's made up of very simple, undeniable concepts.


Can one ever think of perhaps being moderate, and dealing in reality, while at the same time fighting tooth and nail for what one stands for? THAT is the way to win for the Democrats in this world, and until we get that, we will continue to lose. Solid, TOUGH leadership.

I'm so sick of this shit.

[secular_warrior]

27. Bingo - pragmatism and standing for something aren't mutually exclusive

I didn't support Dean, but his message was one which galvanized the base while still remaining attractive to moderates.

The Naderites simply want a leftward shift. The DLC wants a rightward shift. Neither work in the long run in the real world. What works is not simply a right/left shift along a dying core, but transformation of the core itself.. a new pragmatic liberalism which appeals to the base *and* independents.. a movement which stands up and fights for our beliefs and pushes them further and further into the mainstream... a movement that is as concerned with resposibility, accountability and hard results as much as it is with idealism. The major problem with selling old school liberalism to the masses was the lack of accountability, especially when it came to fiscal issues. It's very easy to sell liberalism if one can show the voters the cost/benefit analysis.

[goodwalt]

20. Democracy or Oligarchy?

I thought the lead posts idea of 5-7 parties was a great idea that just cannot happen in the near future. My take is that the Repubs are a highly organized, utterly ruthless cabal of three completely disparate groups- the religious right, the NRA, and the uber-wealthy-corporate elite. The Democrats are simply the party of "everybody else", and independents are nothing more than that portion of "everybody else" that are so disenchanted with the whole process that they refuse to declare allegiance. What is finally uniting the Dem party is the time honored concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Against us is stands the combined might of the evil cabal- that of late includes most of the media, meekly doing the bidding of their corporate masters. With us stands every American voter able to think beyond sound bites. Every knowledgeable voter actually concerned with trivialities like unprecedented fiscal mismanagement, the rolling back of the bill of rights, soaring gas prices, job losses, the continued freedom of a man that masterminded the deaths of 3000+ Americans, environmental policies that blatantly favor polluters, and the daily body count from a war launched on the basis of lies.

For my money, the Nov. election is not so much a test of the wisdom of our democracy as it is a test of whether we are still a democracy at all. Never have the interests of the common man been set in such stark relief against the power of wealth and cynical manipulation of the process.

Democracy or Oligarchy? We will find out come November.

[Bread and Circus]

5. Well, when you got guys like Tom Daschle supporting you...

who needs enemies?

The problem w/ the Dems is that there are no "core issues" that they can all agree on and "no matter what" support.

The Republicans really have a few things they all agree on "smaller government" (whatever that means), generous defense budgets, less taxes, sheltering wealth, and the right to bear arms.

Dems have just have the fuzzy notion of "protecting the little guy" which drags along all the special interest groups that think they are "the little guy".

Overall, the Dem party is more compassionate, forward thinking, and fair but the Right appeals to the innate instinct of kill or be killed and "protect your family". The Dems are more trusting but the Right appeals to natural fears of things we don't know or understand. That fear based strategy appeals to people on a gut, non-rational level.

I think Dems need to have a set of core beliefs spelled out and adhered to that organize the thoughts of the party. Currently, it doesn't and if it does they are doing a shitty job of defining them.

Furthermore, I think there needs to be more parties, perhaps 5 to 7, that compete in the election process on a serious level. Hopefully that would tease out the moderate Republicans from the crazy maniacs that currently have control of our Land. If people could actually differentiate the two, it would marginalize the radicals on the Far Right.

Though I think what Nader is doing is destructive (because Bush is so bad), I think he is trying to take down the "duopoly" that I would like to see go as well. Even though there is a dramatic difference between what is now a moderate, just left of center (dare I say wimpified) Democratic Party and the currently in-power aggressive radical-right Republican party, ultimately these are 2-faces of the same corporate beast that will lead us to the same place: further dismemberment of the body of U.S. Democracy and its Constitution.

It's supposed to be "We, the people", not "We, the corporations and the two main parties who seek to perpetuate themselves..."

I think we are in a descent to a very bad place in U.S. history, even worse than where we are now.

[LittleClarkie]

28. Not without a fight

But we are a divided party. The herding cat analogy is very apt. I told that to someone at HQ when it was apparent that Kerry's speeches last week had jazzed everyone that I thought the unity I saw was amazing, since getting us all excited together is nigh impossible most days.

[dolstein]

6. They'd TRY -- it's just easier to SUCCEED against certain candidates

Let's face it -- Bill Clinton had an awful lot of baggage. There was the womanizing. There was the draft dodging. There were memories of his dreadful, seemingly endless keynote speech from 1988.

But Clinton couldn't be tagged as a liberal. The label just wasn't going to stick to someone who had been repeatedly elected and re-elected to the highest office in the state of Arkansas, which nobody considers to be a bastion of liberalism. And he couldn't be tagged as an elitist. Not when we grew up poor. Not when he spoke with a Southern accent. Not when he talked freely and comfortably about faith, religion and values.

The fact is that Kerry was always extremely vulnerable to charges of being a liberal elistist. That was incredibly obvious, and people who thought his distinguished served in Vietnam would insulate him from these charges were simply deluding themselves.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Absolutely right, and none of our candidates were ideal this time

The GOP smear effort and finances would have been identical, but it's defeatist nonsense to conclude we are doomed this cycle and every cycle simply because Gore and now Kerry have been successfully cartooned. Clinton would have an absolute feast against GW, ridiculing every ludicrous charge with a smile and a zinger and a blunt portrayal of Bush's failings.

As I wrote yesterday, amazing how cleansing a Tom Brady can be, turning teammates into Pro Bowlers and a fat offensive coordinator into head coaching material. If we had a brilliant candidate everything would be different.

I always preferred Edwards because of the regional aspect and likeabity/appearance/speaking ability. My handicap was focused on the tiny group of undecideds, primarily women, and who had the best chance to sway them our way. Did you hear Edwards today, saying we will "crush 'em" referring to terrorists? If Kerry had said that it would be all over the newscasts, but that's just not his style and what I feared all year, losing the sound byte war against an incumbent who specializes in simpleton bluntness.

But I never pretended Edwards was a perfect candidate, given senate not governor, and only one term, plus the terrorism concerns post 9/11. We lost so many governorships in the '90s the talent pool is not what it should be. One governor and he was from Vermont.

The selection of Kerry was predictable and understandable, but as dolstein mentioned he was a chop-licking target for the GOP. The Vietnam background was always overblown as a strength, but none of us could have predicted its successful use aginst him. My February 2003 DU assessment of John Kerry was "just good enough to get you beat." I make a living as a handicapper but have never been so desperate to be proven wrong.

[bigpathpaul]

7. I understand exactly what you mean, but I think things are in flux

I've been through the "stupid Democratic Party" tirade about 60 times this year, but I think we have a difficult challenge: Bush is awful and a lot of people know it. That is a big part of what's driving all of us.

I think the Dem Party may well be in trouble. Or not. Kerry was not my first choice, but I feel real good about him now. If the Party lacks a unifying theme, then that's where we're at in history. I think it may morph into something else. It may even become stronger.

If that's a little rambling, try this: I think given the current climate in which the media is dominated by the Right and the Party is dominated by the center, that what we have is pretty damn good. We have every reason to believe we can win, and I believe it's possible to take back part of Congress.

Either way, Party base or not, this discussion will continue long after November 2nd.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. I think it was Will Rodgers who said

I don't belong to an organised party. I am a Democrat.

[doc03]

8. A couple weeks ago all the talking heads were saying Kerry was behind

in the polls because he didn't respond to the SBVT ads. Tonight on Insanity and colmes the former Democrat pollster Pat ? said Kerry following the advice from Bagala and Carville and getting tough has hurt Kerry. No matter what the Democrat does it is wrong! I get sick of hearing this BS about people liking Bush* for Christ sake about 45% of the people can't stand the SOB.

[mbali]

11. If Kerry had come out swinging in August against SBV

the press STILL would have covered them ad nauseum, just as they did, but they would have blamed Kerry for the coverage. After all, they would say, "it was KERRY who turned this into a story. It would have died quietly, but he ELEVATED it by commenting on it. Once he responded, he made it an issue and we just HAD to cover it!"

You're right, no matter WHAT he did, they would have been all over him.

[doc03]

14. Another thing how could Kerry's tough talk about Iraq have

hurt him in the polls? How many people actually heard his speech? The only way to hear it was on C-span or in person at one of his campaign stops. The media whores show about a 3 second sound blip then talk 15 minutes on the SBVT,the Dan Rather documents or the f---ing Peterson case.

[VOX]

15. Pat Cadell?

Just my best guess. He's always a cranky SOB anyway.

[Guava Jelly]

9. I agree 100% any candidate that runs against the chimp would be slamed

and lied about....Wasnt it a democracy here at one time

[usrbs]

13. Nicely put, and right on target!

I have been thinking exactly the same thing for some time now. Kerry is probably doing better than Dean or Clark would have at this point, and I am speaking as someone who voted for Dean. If we lose, (tfu tfu tfu, touch wood, make the sign of the cross to ward off bad luck), but if we lose, the worst thing we could do is to implode in viscous finger-pointing in all directions. I can see it already - Deaniacs & Clarkies saying "I told you so"; campaign insiders doing tell-it-alls which show how Kerry lost when he wouldn't take their advice; what passes as "liberals" these days going on TV and feebly parrying (or not) the gloating right wing counterparts. It will all be besides the point. If a decent candidate like Kerry doesn't beat a miserable failure like *, it just goes to prove that against the powerful, overwhelming forces of the media, and the totally thuggish/do-anything-to-win fascist like Republicans, the Democrats are helpless and unavailing, and the party, or even better, a progressive movement, must be rebuilt from the ground.
Read this article for more
http://www.democracyfororegon.com/node/view/591

[VOX]

16. Good post, usrbs. Let's harness the anger and put it to work...

A true progressive movement, an accountable media, and a right wing unmasked as the hateful propagandists that they are.

Something of a tall-order wish-list, agreed, but goals are goals.

:toast:

[LastDemStanding]

17. Enough of this "THEY" nonsense

What exactly are we trying to do to THEIR candidate? It ALL about tearing down the other guy. Let's stop sticking our heads in the sand and pretending this election is NOT about tearing down the other guy.

Of course they are hitting our guys...we are returning the favor too! How about we start doing a better job of destroying the other guy and stop crying foul when they do the same better?

Let's get moveon and even Dan Rather if we can to help us!

[Guaranteed]

19. That's funny that you're lumping Dean and Kucinich together,

because the truth is that they're nothing like each other.

And Kerry is more liberal than Dean.

It wasn't about left and right, my friend. It was about strong leadership and not-so-strong leadership.

[okieinpain]

22. thank you. it would not matter if dems got jesus to run.

[Tsiyu]

23. I believe we were all blindsided

Truly...I recognized the danger Reagan posed because of the position I held when he came to power. I never trusted Republicans to begin with, but the American people seemed to balance the legislative and the executive prior to Reagan, and I wasn't as disgusted by Repukes as I am today.

When I was homeschooling for a while and hung out with some real fundies, I began to understand their agenda, though not the high levels of it. I understood their desire for theocracy, and the sneaky, underhanded, pathetic way they would lie to the American people to create one.

And they are demons, the spawn of hell. So we are all left in shock over how quickly and brutally they've accomplished their aims. And we must all take our nation back. America means too much to the world to be viewed as no more than an evil empire.

They've been bashing Kerry for over two years. They'll bash Hillary for years to come. But you can only go so far tearing the other guy down. Eventually you have to produce something to back up your own claims. And * hasn't done that. No matter how many childish insults he tosses out there, he is political toast.

[meg]

25. amen

well said, you are so right!

[Cheswick2.0]

26. So?

Of course they would attack any candidate. Some would be better able to fight the attacks. Kerry is getting it together better now. I hope it is not too late.