We have more threads here slamming Dean then Bush

[mzmolly]

nice.... :grouphug:

[YNGW]

1. Tis' the season......

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

20. yes, the primary season.

bush being what he is, is not an issue of contention around here.

who we send into the ring with him is. i rarely click on bush bashing threads. too little time and too little interest. who our nominee is the issue of the next three/four months.

[mrgorth]

2. The man eats puppies

what do you expect?

[bowens43]

86. Who doesn't?

[LuminousX]

3. That's because people don't see the big picture

and are so eager to win a battle that they aren't thinking about the war.

[Skwmom]

29. What good is winning the battle if you lose the war?

Which will most likely happen if Dean is the nominee.

[calimary]

45. Well, hey, go ahead with that mind set. Thoughts like this will

make it come true. That what you want? FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH?

[LuminousX]

58. Crystal ball much?

[polpilot]

97. Ask Kerry about his battle with Dean. Ask Gep. Ask Joe. Ask Johnny.

Dean '04..

[bearfartinthewoods]

48. well put

[shindig]

61. Exactly,

That's what the people who support Dean are doing.

[LuminousX]

72. That is what a lot of people are doing

Vices and sins of this type are rarely attributable to only one campaign.

ProfessorPlum a long time ago had a great post regarding 'silver bullets' and the effort people were going to 'take out' the other campaigns with one thing. It is silly, wasteful, and pointless, yet people are still trying to do it.

If you desire to turn this bit into YET ANOTHER attack on Dean, be my guest; I like having my points proven.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. I don't really think that is the case and the reacting makes it worse.

The article on the front page of my LA Times today states Republican favor Dean to run against. Whether they are correct or miscalculating is a matter worthy of debate and complaining won't change that.

Dean is a good candidate and a strong candidate in many respects, but we need to determine if he is the candidate that when stacked against Bush will help us to both carry our base and take along a few Republicans disgusted with Bush's social and foreign policy.

[LuminousX]

9. What is your core suggestion then?

Are you saying everyone who supports Dean should suddenly NOT support Dean because of a poll?

Who do you suggest Dean supporters migrate to?

[mrgorth]

14. That is what they seem to want.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Who is "they"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. My core suggestion is to continue to allow debate on who the

best choice is. If you believe it to be Dean then say why. If you don't, then say why. If you believe it to be someone else then say why. If you are uncertain, then say why.

For my oen values, I am less than impressed with Dean in some areas and quite impressed in others. I've already stated them on the relevent threads and will continue to figure out who my vote ultimately goes to since I am still undecided.

It's still very early.

[LuminousX]

22. I have stated my reasons, but you are saying that backing Dean is wrong

Not just unfavorable in your opinion, but wrong because Dean will lose to Bush. You say it in absolutist terms. What am I to do? Should I vote for someone else randomly?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. Are you asking me a hypothetical question or saying I said that?

In the good faith interpretation that you are asking me a hypothetical question, if one states their opinion in absolutist terms, it doesn't look as though there is much that will persuade them. They are as convinced that they are right as you may be convinced that you are right.

Continue to post your best information and just know that NO ONE truly knows the real answer to that question.

The person who speaks as an absolutist doesn't do themselves too many favors.

[LuminousX]

73. Thank you for the favorable interpretation

I was actually confusing you with another poster who said Dean will lose against Bush. I appreciate your gentle interpretation of my post.

[bearfartinthewoods]

49. here i am, in PA, surrounded by gun stores and churches and

probably 30 miles from a gay friendly bar. now tell me how i sell a guy who tells people to forget about guns, God and gays. you think the people here are going to suddeenly hit themselves on the forhead and say...gee...he's right....i'll just change my whole way of thinking.

ok...so if you write off the center of PA, then you are relying on the cities to win the state. now tell me about his successful outreach to inner city minorities. lots of philly is a lot like Harlem.

ok. so we rely on the suburbs except those people may be religious or maybe they don't relish a tax increase and don't trust his ability to actually get releif for tuition costs or universal heathcare through a congress that will likely still be pubbie and whom he has threatened to make scurry like cockroaches.

ok...so we lose PA. now go to this map and tell me which southern states he will win to pick up enough electorial votes to undo the lose of PA.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/
and just for the helluvit...toss in concern about his self admitted foot in mouth and tendancy to forget what he used to say about issues ON THE FREAKING RECORD, until someone shoves it into his face in writing and how that will be a lovely waste of news cycle after news cycle.

you see....it isn't about hating the man it's about the gut boiling belief that he isn't gonna beat bush.

[TLM]

93. Why do you have to lie about what Dean said...

Obviously he is not as bad as you say if you have to make shit up.

"to forget about guns, God and gays"

No, what he says is that we need to stop making our campaigns about those things that divide us like god, guns, and gays... and instead forcus on things we all agree on and we all consider important like jobs, education, and healthcare.


And Dean's state rights position on gun control is all you need to sell him in PA.

[bearfartinthewoods]

98. 'we' don't have control over what the campaigns are about.

we can try but it isn't up to us alone. the pubs and the media have something to say about how the issues are focused.
and guns are just one leg of his statement...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

34. No. Just reconsider it and look at the other candidates

a change of perspective never hurts.

[LuminousX]

74. And I have. I did my social experiment where I renounced Dean

and would only consider other candidates. That is how I came to my position that Kucinich and I just don't go together. I returned to Dean the day Senator Paul Simon endorsed him.

[deminflorida]

40. Here Ya go.....

http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/

[LuminousX]

75. It would take a lot for me to back a military man for President

I've always been a bigger fan of Thomas Jefferson than George Washington.

[shindig]

95. I support they migrate to Clark

Because Clark has a chance to beat Bush. Dr. Dean has little chance to beat Bush, because THIS election, like it or not, will be about terror, foreign policy, emotionalism, patriotism, and the GOP wrapping itself in the flag. Clark (and Kerry) are the ones who can neutralize Bush on those issues. Dean cannot. Unless the things I mentioned above are neutralized first, nothing else will matter.

But people keep saying, well how did Clinton win in 1992 then? In 1992, the media was not 100% behind Bush, as they are behind this Bush. The media was tired of Bush back then. They made a point of the way he looked at his watch, seemingly bored during one of the debates, for example. If Bush, Jr did something like that, the media would portray it as something endearing.

In 1992, 9-11 hadn't happend, and our country's security was not the MAIN issue. It really was the economy, stupid. And at least half of the argument centered around the question whether George Bush the first really was a disinterested and out of touch. Today, there is no such thing. The media backs this Bush 100%. Anyone running against him is seen GOING IN as being disrespectful of our great, wartime President by the Bush loving media. How does Howard Dean fight this president but not piss of the sheeple by appearing disprectful of this wartime hero president that the media keeps insisting he is?

Only the General and Kerry have the credentials to appear credible when they attempt the very delicate and difficult task of exposing Bush for who he actually is. The media will continue to portray Bush as a war hero. Only Clark and Kerry can can contrast themselves with Bush so that the general electorate sheeple can see right in front of their face what a real war hero actually looks like. It's a compare and contrast thing. Howard Dean has no way to compare and contrast himself with Bush on this most important issue for this election.

I like Howard Dean. I've always liked him. But he is not the one who can expose Bush in a credible fashion at this time for this election. Clark or Kerry might actually be able to neutralize Bush, knock him from the phoney pedestal the media has placed him on since 9-11. Unless Bush is knocked from the phoney pedestal the media has placed him on since 9-11, everything else is moot and a futile academic exercise. Everything else is seen as nit-picking at the great wartime president. It is seen as expecting him to be perfect or something. The average sheeple will ask, well, what are your credentials, if you think Bush is sooooooooooooo bad? And what will Howard Dean have for an answer? Will he say, like he said in the last debate, when he thought the conversation was going on too long about Iraq, that I don't want to talk about that anymore? Will he answer that the debate is going on too long, like he did when Kerry kept pressing him about whether he supported a decrease in Medicare expenditures?

So why not Kerry then? Why do I think only Clark can beat Bush and not Kerry? Kerry has other problems. Even if he is successful at neutralizing Bush by being able to contrast himself in the matter of national security, he will STILL be characterized by the GOP and the whore media as the elitist northeastern liberal. And I'm sorry, Kerry supporters, everyone has a point when they suggest that the distinguished senator from Massachussets just doesn't connect very well with people outside of his region. When he tries to counteract that characterization, he comes off as overdone, like he's trying too hard. Remember how Al Gore was always trying to re-invent himself and how that looked to your average steeple?

And Kerry has the problem of being around the thick of things forever. He, like Gephardt, have just been around too long, and it shows. They can't fight anymore. They are too inside, too comfortable with losing to put up an effective fight. And they seem desperate at times -- like they just can't figure out why people don't realize how strong their records are. And, yes, their records are strong, and both are extremely qualified. But they just don't know how to win in this enduring, frankly overwhelming, right-wing GOP propoganda machine world in which we now live.

Believe me, I'm not just making this stuff up, the media knows all of this all too well. You just have to pay better attention to the script, to see the handwriting on the wall.

You'll notice the script the last few days has been for the media to focus on Kerry as the alternative to Dean. The media talks about Kerry, so they appear to look like they aren't simply coronating Dean. They talk (a little) about alternatives to Dean so that they appear to be concerned about the question some are asking as to what happened to the other candidates. But notice that while the media pretends to care about the other candidates a little, and not just Dean, the mute button stays on Clark. He's not really one of the other candidates, the media sublimimmbmbmbly reminds us.

Lieberman, and even Edwards, get talked about, but talking about Clark is mostly frowned upon, except for as an afterthought. This isn't happening by accident. The media knows that Lieberman and Edwards aren't getting the nomination. And they know that Kerry from Massachussets has a hard time beating Bush, despite his ability to neutralize the national security/war hero factor, but because of his other problems.

And the main thing the corporate whore media knows with regards to the general election is that Clark is Bush's worst nightmare. But they won't do any serious analysis of that. Too dangerous to conclude that Clark, the charming, southern, liberal war-hero diplomat could be Bush's worst nightmare, because then someone might hear that and think about voting for him. Corporate media likes the status quo. The country will be just fine the way it is. And they don't want to hear any more of that General Clark talking about appointing people to the FCC who might just think it's time to take another look at reenstating the "fairness doctrine."

It's too dangerous and scary to consider that General Clark is the truly compassionate, liberal, war-hero, outsider, who has already shown in his extremely short campaign that he is up to the fight. Hell, the progress he's made in such a short time is a story in itself. But we'll never see any stories like that, because the media knows that whenever Clark's story and message squeak through, his popularity instantly goes up. Bush, Rove, Cheny, Wolfowitz, Perle, Hannity, Novak, Woolsey, Krauthammer, all of them, and the rest of the media, including their so-called moderate subservients, like Broder and Friedman, don't like the thought of Clark's message getting out. Because when it does, he immediately goes up in the polls.

General Clark is what democracy is all about. The neo-conservative, arrogant bullies, as Clark called them yesterday, don't like democracy. That's why they don't like General Clark. All of our candidates are wonderful. Every one of them, and I do mean every one of them would make great presidents. Everyone of them would be like night and day compared to Bush. But we have to beat him first. We can't beat him unless we credibly neutralize him by the simple compare and contrast strategy on the great wartime hero issue. Besides being a great man with a extremely palatable liberal platform he's running on, Clark is the man to neutralize Bush on the war-hero thing. We can't win unless we are able to do that first.

Because Bush and Rove and Cheney are phoney, arrogant, low-life scumbag chicken hawk bullyboys with noses, they sense correctly that the general can kick their ass on what they think is their strong issue. They know, if he is given the chance, he is the one that might actually do it. Kick their ass! They don't want to bother with having to come up with a new fake phoney strategy. General Clark will force them to. And it might just be too late for them to come up with a new strategy. With Howard Dean as our nominee, they won't have to try and craft a new way to beat democrats. They will just continue to beat us the way they have been beating us, because Howard Dean can't beat them where they want to go, he can only remain on the defensive about issues of national security. That is where they want Dean.

Vote for Clark in the democratic primaries, put Bush and Rove on the defensive. Let General Clark go on the offensive. Let's make them have to try and come up with a new strategy to beat democrats. Let's make this a fight!

[tsipple]

17. Simple Question: What else would the Republicans say?

About any Democratic candidate?

Karl Rove: "Oh, dear! Whatever are we going to do! The Democrats look like they're going to nominate a well-funded outsider with a strong message and huge grassroots support and enthusiasm. I doubt we can win! What are we going to do?"

See my point?

[bowens43]

89. We don't need any Republicans...

Our base, the greens and a few independents will suffice.

[killbotfactory]

5. It makes it such a warm inviting place...

You know... like a cesspool... or hog farm...

[Julien Sorel]

6. LOL

And Dean has spent more time bashing other Democrats over the past year than Bush has. The sad thing is, that's not hyperbole.

[CMT]

10. yeah

Bush is a nice guy. But it is the primary time and we are going to see it. I think all the candidates have indulged in attacks and for the last several months due to his front runner status most of the attacks have been centered on Dean. That's ok, it only emboldens his supporters and help prepare us for the general election.

[mzmolly]

23. The Freepers are lovin it.

Republicans fall in line, Dems eat their own.

[Hope4]

35. Think, stop worrying

The last two elections, the repubs were doing this to each other and you do not even remember it.

Look how bad the fighting was with bush and others and he won.

Bush is copying the way Clinton handled things when he ran for re-election with a group of people fighting to undo him. It is normal practice.

Remember how Clinton beat the repubs. Also the repubs did what we are trying to do but with two power groups, select not elect and they did with dole who clinton ate up. Hope we do not have our guy selected by the clinton or gore groups.

We have gone outside to pick a fired general. Are we asking for defeat. Why not support one of our own with no problems. I would say DK, JK, HD, JL, JE do not have any of the major problems the others have and would be used against them.

If we get clark a fired general who was on the bush team just a short time ago, we will have our dole for the president to beat.

[deminflorida]

41. Some Good Reading for Ya...

http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/

[eileen_d]

43. Have you been to FR lately? It's not all unity there either.

Last night I skimmed FR and another conservative site, LibertyPost (www.libertypost.org). The latter is a site with a lot of disgruntled ex-freepers who are tired of following the Bush line.

There have been a number of threads in GD lately talking about Republicans who are sick and tired of Bush. I think that's a bigger story than the so-called Democratic party "split" (Dean vs. whatever).

It's completely natural during the primaries to have people ganging up on the frontrunner, and it is going to get uglier if Dean does better -- that's just how it is. Dean supporters act like their commitment to their candidate is valid and other people's commitments to other candidates are not.

The question has been asked over and over again "Will you support Dean if he is nominated" - and over and over again people who are against Dean now (by virtue of their preference/support for other candidates) say "Yes, Yes, Yes." Everyone on this site wants Bush out. Unity will come after the nomination. But Republican unity is going to continue to crumble as Bush alienates more and more of his base.

This is why I don't buy the theory that Dean is unelectable, BTW - Bush is losing support from his own people. Whether they will choose Dean or not may not even be relevant - I think a lot of them will stay home.

[mzmolly]

84. Great post....

puts it in perspective I hope... ;)

[bearfartinthewoods]

51. bull...remember John McCain?

that wasn't settled until when ...feb or march?

it's too early to fall in line.

[0007]

80. Like a bunch of yapping monkeys

I remember when they were doing the same thing before junior was nominated. God! Did they hate that coke sniffing drunk. And some of the candidates they had would make a guy laugh.

[bearfartinthewoods]

53. a fact that many in the Dean camp have conveniently forgotten

so it seems. Dean got where he is, in part by attacking his rivals yet any return of the favor is somehow unfair? hmmmmmpft.

[LuminousX]

76. When Dean attacked

his rivals cried foul. That is what they are supposed to do. When Dean's rivals attack, Dean is supposed to cry foul.

C'mon... that is the nature of primary politics. You are never supposed to just sit still and let people attack you.

[Hep]

7. It's fine

Because all that most people draw from it is, "Dean's the hot topic".

And you know what? Dean IS the hot topic.

[no name no slogan]

8. Welcome to the primaries

Once it's over, it will get nice again. It just seems worse this year than before because the Democrats have a real presidential candidate selection process for the first time in 12 years.

During my last "active" presidential campaign (1988-- pre-Web), I remember it getting quite heated among fellow Democrats. I was still in college, and we were all jockeying for prime tabling space among ourselves, AND with the various Republicans, too (Bush Sr., Dole, Robertson). Once the caucuses were done, we all made nicey-nicey and worked on kicking the Shrub's Daddy's arse.

We'll have a nominee soon. And then we'll REALLY get to work!

:D

[mrgorth]

12. I wish I could believe this.

[tsipple]

21. Believe It

The Washington carping and whining will look pretty quaint around about March.

Just do a Nexis search if you want to see what Democrats said about each other in 1992, 1988, and other competitive races. Even Bill Bradley, in 2000, said that Al Gore raped puppies on the Sabbath. Or something like that. :-)

[mmonk]

11. not surprised

The primary season is approaching.

[fishnfla]

13. I noticed that too, but what the hey?

That * line about the iraqi contracts and lives risked from yesterday went by us with nary a peep. Bush basically said blood=oil.

[quinnox]

18. So?

Dean is fair game. Some of us happen to support other candidates.

[mzmolly]

25. So?

it's pathetic that were attacking one of the few dems who have had the courage ALL ALONG to speak out against *, pathetic. We cried for years Dems didn't stand up to R's, now that we've got one who does, we try to take him out? It's bullshit.

[Mountainman]

37. I don't think anyone wants to take him out

Just don't say we have to back him now during primary season. All the other candidates didn't enter the race to give up because Dean has raised more money or because he is ahead in the polls.

It is not time to get behind any one candidate it is time to back the one you like and say why you don't like the others.

I don't feel like Dean is my candidate. I don't feel good about him. I don't have to get behind him yet. If he is the nominee I will vote for him but I hope I don't have to do that.

[deminflorida]

42. Pass the Stick......

http://www.ex-deaniacsforclark.com/

[mzmolly]

85. Here you go.

http://switchtodean.com/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Just shows that the rightwing Dems are panicking.

Those that support "the Dems have to become more moderate" mantra are getting worried that they might lose control of the party.

[mydawgmax]

28. Wrong.

Wrong. A lot of people support other candidates precisely becuase they don't want a centrist.

[Paulie]

30. Amen

n/t

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. why would 'right wing dems" be upset if we nominate a centerist like Dean?

you haven't bought the liberal label have you?

[caledesi]

24. Oh yeah, why not do Rove's work for him? *extreme sarcasm*

[mmonk]

26. Pot, Kettle

Kettle, Pot

[Mountainman]

27. If Dean becomes the nominee than he won't be slammed Bush will be

But today I don't want Dean to get the nomination because I don't think he can win against Bush. All this grass roots stuff is all just a part of the Dem base and when it comes to counting the votes we need more than the Dem base.

Let's say that 40% are Dems, 30% are Repubs and 30% are independents. The grass roots behind Dean is part of the 40%. We need all the 40% plus another 20% to carry enough states to beat Bush.
The grass root movement behind Dean cannot deliver the Whitehouse on it's own.

[Hope4]

31. I was for him now very concerned

I do not like how these two power groups are trying to select dean or clark. Take a look at this to worry you even more.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/13258.htm

December 12, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A stunning new poll shows President Bush would clobber Democratic front-runner Howard Dean by nearly 2-1 in politically potent New Hampshire - even though Dean has a giant lead over Democratic rivals in the state.
Bush gets 57 percent to Dean's 30 percent among registered voters in the American Research Group poll. In fact, Dean, from neighboring Vermont, does worse in the Granite State than a generic "Democratic Party nominee" who loses to Bush by 51 to 34 percent. Another ARG poll this month showed Dean with a 30-point lead over Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) for the Jan. 27 New Hampshire primary, the second test after the Jan. 19 Iowa caucuses.

The new poll seems sure to fuel claims by rivals that Dean would be another George McGovern debacle for Democrats in the general election.

[mzmolly]

32. Don't concern yourself yet Hope, this doesn't mean a thing.

;)

[bushisanidiot]

36. They Are Hoping That If They Say "Dean will Lose" enough times it will

happen.

no WAY Dean will lose to that dim wit. No way in HELL!

any one of our candidates could give the Deserter a trouncing in the next election. ANY one of them. To believe otherwise is just falling for the stupid rove jedi mind tricks.

how hard can it be to point out all of the chimps blunders over the last 3 years? just look around. look what he's done to this country. americans do NOT want more of the same despite what rush, rove, etc. want to drill into your heads.

stop watching fox news and spend some time in reality, people.

[mzmolly]

38. I agree, they'd rather be 'right' then beat *

it's a joke.

[bearfartinthewoods]

62. ok...here is more than' Dean will lose'..here is my thinking..

convince me i'm wrong. do more than cheerlead. give me reasoned arguements as to why i'm wrong.

here i am, in PA, surrounded by gun stores and churches and probably 30 miles from a gay friendly bar. now tell me how i sell a guy who tells people to forget about guns. God and gays. you think the people here are going to suddeenly hit themselves on the forhead and say...gee...he's right....i'll just change my whole way of thinking. isn't likely and we're toast in the centerland.

ok...so if you write of the center of PA, then you are relying on the cities to win the state. now tell me about his successful outreach to inner city minorities. lots of philly is a lot like Harlem. and we saw what kind of minority support he got in Harlem.

ok. so we rely on the suburbs except those people maybe religious or maybe they don't relish a tax increase and don't trust his ability to actually get releif for tuition costs or universal heathcare through a congress that will likely still be pubbie and whom he has threathened to make scurry like cockroaches.

ok...so we lose PA. now go to this map and tell me which southern states he will win to pick up enough electorial votes to undo the lose of PA.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

and just for the helluvit...toss in concern about his self admitted foot in mouth and tendancy to forget what he used to say about issues ON THE FREAKING RECORD, until someone shoves it into his face in writing and how that will be a lovely waste of news cycle after news cycle. you see....it isn't about hating the man it's about the gut boiling belief that he isn't gonna beat bush.

[littlejoe]

70. You convince them by hitting them on core issues.

Guns, God and gays are fringe issues, and will not be the subject of intense debate or scrutiny. THAT's how you convince the people in Pennsylvania.

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. please read beyond the first paragrah

[mzmolly]

87. I just saw southern strategists who helped a Dem win in Virginia

*who live in the south and always have* agree with Dean on this issue. I'll take their word for it ;)

[Zomby Woof]

39. I have seen you slam other candidates

Perhaps before you go on to correcting our flaws, you may want to lead by example.

[mzmolly]

44. I have done so in the past, only to defend my own

I would vote for any candidate who is running in this race. Fact is now we have a real front runner, we should be starting to come together rather then try to 'take him out.'

[Zomby Woof]

46. sounds like enforced conformity to me

Not only do you extol a "get in line" way of thinking - and UNTIL A VOTE IS CAST, there is no frontrunner - you also preach a double standard: "I can tear down your candidate as long as I support mine, but you can't tear down mine even if you support yours". Doesn't wash.

Did you miss the point of my thread the other day? Clinton ranked near last in the polls at 6% this time in December of 1991. Proclaiming Howard Dean is the frontrunner is premature, and trying to get us all to "get with the program" will just invite further derision of your post. Maybe he will win, maybe he won't, but until this is over, the rest of reserve the right to dissent and criticize.

Deal, as they say.

[mzmolly]

47. I made an observation, DU is going ABB after the primaries...

And Dean is the front runner. I'm suggesting we keep our eye on the prize and come to 'grips' with the fact that Dean may be our nominee.

[Zomby Woof]

50. then you better equally be prepared...

...to come to grips with the fact they he may not be the nominee, and if so, may even lose to Bush. Don't worry, I won't blame anyone if that happens, since I am trying to prevent Dean from getting that far, so I can say I did my part. ;-)

There will be NO ABB until after the primaries, and even then, it won't be utopia on here. No matter what, you are still making a premature and unwarranted push for conformity and "unity" before a single vote has been cast. It is supremely undemocratic to make such a move. I am not sure you even see how arrogant it comes across, even if that is not your intention.

[mzmolly]

54. I am prepared that Dean may not be the nominee, always have been.

I'm not pushing for anything, I made an observation. Freerepublic couldn't ask for more.

[QC]

52. If Bush supporters were running around DU telling us it's all wrapped up

and we should just shut up and get ready for the coronation, then there would be lots more threads bashing Bush.

A good bit of the antagonism here is caused by the attitude that the whole thing is over and those of us who support the other eight candidates are either fools or Rove's flunkies, rather than loyal Democrats who support other candidates.

Yes, it is arrogant, as another poster said, and it's also counterproductive, because once we have the primaries (remember those?) all of us will need to get behind the winner if we are going to get rid of Bush.

[mzmolly]

55. I hope that the vitriol doesn't help Bush in the end.

:shrug: I think you'd be far more effective in supporting your candidate if you posted about his/her qualities rather then try to take down Dean.

[QC]

63. I have never tried "to take down Dean."

I don't slam any of our candidates. I have never started an anti-candidate thread, and when defending my own candidate I do not lash out at other ones, as you admit to having done.

You might find this hard to believe, but there are those of us out in DU-land who honestly believe that other candidates are better choices. We don't hate your candidate, and we will support him if he wins the nomination. We do not work for Rove and we do not have sinister motives. We simply disagree with you.

Frankly, all this "you're either with us or against us" talk is what is truly Rovian.

[mzmolly]

67. I never suggested your with us or against us, but in the end thats what it

is...

[QC]

68. Yes, in the end.

We're not at the end yet.

We have barely started the process of choosing a nominee. It's not Gallup or endorsements that choose nominees--it's voters turning out to cast ballots. And as someone who can remember when Hart and Tsongas were considered virtual certainties and Clinton was dead meat, I know that a lot can happen over the course of the primaries.

[jumptheshadow]

77. But we're exploring very real questions

The debate over a candidate's record, his or her stand on issues and electability are fundamental to the democratic process.

[mzmolly]

82. Exposing or espousing?

that is the question :)

[redqueen]

57. Slamming?

There's a couple of threads questioning his tax cuts for a certain type of business or something, but I consider that criticism, not 'slamming'.

Now, if they were saying that he was ugly, too short, a loony, etc. -- that would be slamming.

Constructive criticism is helpful and should be encouraged.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

66. agreed

There is a difference between bashing and CRITICIZING.

Dean supporters are not the only ones, but seem to be the most vocal in denouncing any critique of their candidate as pure baseless bashing even when Dean's own words are part of the evidence. :)

Go Kucinich then Go dems!

TWL

[mzmolly]

91. Constructive?

This is in no way constructive, there could be people here deciding whether to vote Nader or (fill in the blank) and eating our own isn't gonna help come November 04.

What's constructive is supporting our candidates with postive threads, not digging trash on the front runners.

[rucky]

59. Bush is a known quantity

goes without saying that he sucks.

I like Dean, but I finally understand the psychology behind the recent rash of threads. We'll get thru this... I'm not worried.

[Exultant Democracy]

60. We should focus on CMB she needs to be attacked more

[redqueen]

69. Why is every itty bitty criticism called an 'attack'????

I'll start the critique of CMB - she should not have voted against Clinton's veto to help Republicans pass the Securities Litigation Reform Act. She voted with Lieberman and Feinstein to side with Republicans and should explain that.

See? It's not an attack, it's a valid criticism.

Anyone else?

[Scott Lee]

78. "Itty bitty"? There are on average a dozen Dean hate threads

posted here a day. My dear, I don't think that qualifies as "itty bitty", but they sure sound "petty petty".

[redqueen]

79. *sigh*

Hate threads? If there are so many, please share with me, what are the "Dean hate" threads for today?

And a word of friendly criticism, when you call someone "My Dear", it sounds belittling. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do, considering that the whole point of this thread is not to unfairly belittle your chosen candidate, so I would think that unfairly belittling anyone would be against your principles -- just thought I'd point that out.

[WilliamPitt]

83. "Hate"

is another word you people have been bandying around. The Nazi-inference thread got locked, so I guess you can auger in on "Hate."

Guess what. I don't hate Howard Dean. I'll bet you'd have to go a long long way here to find someone who hates Howard Dean.

Keep using the word, though. Victimhood suits you.

[QC]

96. It's reminiscent of the Republican talking point

that all criticism of Bush is motivated by blind, irrational hate.

[VelmaD]

90. A dozen or so out of how many...

total threads.

Sorry, I do math for a living. Get some perspective.

[mzmolly]

92. A dozen on the front page alone. Now do the math on the other candidates

and Dean is ahead on the 'trash a dem' category. I do math for a living too.

[Patriot_Spear]

94. Watch the spin- the anti-Dean faction will make it sound like YOUR problem

"It's the primaries"
"you're too sensititve"
"you're words are hyperbolic"
"you're a zombie Deaniac"

But they won't say they'll quit smearing a fellow Dem.

[Myra]

64. We're already united in hating Bush. 'Merka didn't vote for him.

But don't assume that Dean is the de facto candidate.
He is *not*.

And, as Conason said, Dean himself warned:

"In the past, when we've done this, settled on somebody quick, then you have buyer's remorse."

If we enter the GE with Dean, KKKarlCo *will* gleefully go
after his post-draft deferment ski spree, and his refusal to
unseal his records.

Dean glibly retorts "I'll unseal his mine if he'll unseal his."
First, that won't fly. The media whores will eat him alive.
Second, are there Dean supporters who can think critically and
who are bothered by the fact that Dean wants to hide his records?

Why does he want to hide his records?

Remember, this is nothing like the intensity of questioning
he'll get if he makes it to the GE.

[littlejoe]

65. It is much easier for a sniper

to pick off the the man leading point, than those who are in the back of the pack.

[Ripley]

81. Ayup.

And ain't it great to log into a "progressive" board and read posts about how whitey liberals ain't nothin but code-word usin RWers who clutch their purses in the real world?

[mzmolly]

88. Oy, laughin out loud at that one.

:toast:

[Octafish]

99. If we didn't it'd be a bad sign -- four more years of Bush.

See, more people believe Dean would lose than believe he could beat Bush.