X candidate needs to clean up his/her campaign (et al)

[BellTry]

I have noticed something that I seriously hope will be addressed immediately after a nominee is chosen.

I was listening to a Dean supporter at a gay straight alliance meeting. She was advocating that people at the meeting vote for and support Dean because he will support gay rights.

No problem. Everything was going well. Then she screwed up in a way that is so outrageous it more than likely insured NO ONE in that room would be voting for Dean. What did she say? In the course of her support Dean rant she said (not verbatim) 'we hope a large number of US soldiers get killed in Iraq to lower Bush's approval'. Naturally mass criticism ensued. She attempted to take back the statement 'I didn't mean it literally' etc. It didn't matter however, the damage was done.

Such statements have been made here by a select few people as well.

Obviously members of the more radical left (i.e. those who think US forces dieing to lower Bush's approval is acceptable) are in the campaigns.

Once a nominee is chosen we will more than likely have our fair share of idiots who will make incompetent statements such as the above.

I would hope that these people are put FAR FAR FAR FAR away from public contact in the campaign. Something along the lines of counting donations, putting up (pre-approved) posters, etc. Otherwise they could potentially alienate scores of people every time they decided to ask for votes/support.

People like the above will very well be a negative contributing factor to the campaign. For everyone who will be supporting the democratic campaign in your region - make sure that people affiliated with the campaign in your area who are like this do NOT speak to people about the candidate in ANY official capacity. The dislike for Bush has gone very far with some people, and they are totally willing and able to say the stupidest of things that will alienate the vast majority of people. It would be a shame for us to do Rove's job for him.

[jmaier]

1. Don't buy it.

:spank:

I support Wes Clark but I don't buy the details of this anecdote AT ALL. I think someone is just trying to stir up trouble because, even IF it were true (and it's probably not) how is the Dean Campaign supposed to respond to an anonymous story and poster.

STOP IT.

[Khephra]

2. Even if it is true...

One speaker going off the rails is representative of an entire group?

Your casting of Dean supporters as being from the far left is also quite revealing.

(Sorry about the linkage to your post, jmaier. Bad posting by my part. It should have linked to the first one.)

[BellTry]

11. Jesus people!

I didn't say she was representative of an entire group! THAT is the problem! Did you totally miss the point?

These people are NOT reperesentative of the candidates. THAT is the problem.

I did NOT cast Dean supporters as being from the far left. I said MEMBERS of the FAR LEFT are in the campaigns. That is an undenieable fact. These people are NOT representative of the candidates. That is my concern.

Take note how I clearly said "et al" in the subject of the post. This was NOT a Dean hit.

[WiseMen]

Sorry, but I hear this regularly from Dean supporters

Some of these folks despise Deans "moderate" social view but feel
Dean will ride the "movement" to Victory -- and then they will
get control.

A ton of activity, all so false and unsubstantial it is tragic.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Agree

And even if it is true there is no certification exam needed to be a volunteer for any campaign. Somewhere in this great country of ours I know that someone claiming to support my guy is saying something really really stupid, even as I type.

[displacedtexan]

29. actually, there is...and volunteer coordinators work hard

to make sure that volunteers don't address crowds or talk to the press. volunteers are vetted (dem membership, previous involvement, etc.), and they also sign agreements, which outline acceptable behavior.

i have serious doubts about the veracity of the statements attributed to the dean supporter cited in the original post.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. That's great.

A wise investment of energy to vett volunteers, really cuts down on bad incidents. Either the one cited didn't happen, or someone was free lancing, or someone really blew it. The point is the Dean campaign is doing what it can to keep control of its message. Good work.

[BellTry]

5. Oh please

I said multiple times these people are likely in ALL campaigns.

Just because this person was a Dean supporter does NOT IN ANY WAY reflect the opinions of most Dean supporters as you seem to be implying.

If you think people like this do not exist in the campaigns then I would strongly suggest you spend some time at campaign events. You'll find out VERY quickly.

[Khephra]

10. Then why the title for this thread?

I see only Dean's name mentioned.

[BellTry]

12. NOTICE THE ET AL?

How am I speaking only of Dean in the subject? Care to explain?

[Khephra]

13. I missed that the first time and just came back to edit

Yell often? Sheesh.

[BellTry]

21. I don't mean to

but I was *clearly* attempting to make sure to note this applied to other campaigns as well. You can see that both in the subject and message. I will accept that you missed it.

[drfemoe]

40. because

the (et al) comes after the word "campaign" and not "Dean" .. which would indicate "Dean" has things other than his "campaign" to clean up. ..

I am sure if you passed the along the details of this "event" to HQ (via the blog or any method you choose), they would be able to contact the organizers and remind them that this is certainly not part of Dean's message, dream, agenda, nor otherwise condoned by him or his campaign.

Or you can post the name and location of the event, and a Dean voter would be happy to advise HQ of this situation.

never mind .. second reading >>> NOT A DEAN EVENT

[Ficus]

3. People all over the left

think it'd be better if US soldiers died, just like people all over the right think it's cool to kill abortion doctors. They are all nutty - and have no respect for human life. Being anti-war means you dont want ANYONE to die.

[Rose Siding]

6. Name, date and location of meeting?

:eyes:

[denverbill]

18. Yep. I'm waiting too.

[Rose Siding]

25. I love this part-

"It would be a shame for us to do Rove's job for him."

A crying shame, I tell ya.

[MIMStigator]

35. Still no answer. I smell a RAT

nt

[maddezmom]

7. just a suggestion

Write to the Dean campaign or blog with all the information. Name of event, time, place, speakers, etc. Because the way this is written it is nothing but hearsay.

[David__77]

8. Every campaign has wackjobs.

If you believe that this person is representing Dean's viewpoint, then you are seriously mistaken. If this is what was said, then it's wrong, of course. I've never seen such a thing. All kinds of people support this campaign or that, and you cannot judge on that basis alone. There's nothing to "clean up," except the right-wing mess in Washington.

[BellTry]

31. <sigh>

I see everyone has clearly missed the point here.

NEVER once did I say this person represented Dean's viewpoint. NEVER. In fact, that was my entire problem with it. I also clearly stated these people are no doubt supporters of other campaigns as well.

However obviously people are so biased that legit concerns are ignored if they make them uncomfortable.

Whatever. Take it as you will, but when votes are lost because of this kind of thing don't say you weren't told. Just put your head under the sand and enjoy another 4 years.

[Scott Lee]

9. Misleading topic!

Your topic headline admonishes DEAN to "clean up his campaign", but the substance of your post assails a DEAN SUPPORTER who said something objectionable at a meeting.

Two very different things!

Howard Dean has never ever ever advocated more soldier deaths to decrease popularity for Dumbass. To insinuate such by your misleading thread here is outrageous, and maybe you need to edit your topic header, or just apologize.

[Ripley]

15. Sometimes they don't realize how obvious they are.

It's hilarious to see them squirm when nailed.

[BellTry]

17. Dean does need to clean up the campaign

as does ANY candidate. (hence the 'et al')

The candidates should take steps to insure these people are kept away from making such claims as they obviously do not represent them.

[NicoleM]

20. How do you propose

they do that?

[BellTry]

23. Guidelines for one thing

Every campaign in every location should make sure to take steps to minimize such damage. Only the candidate has the power to issue guidelines to every campaign hq nationally.

[janx]

34. The Dean campaign doesn't work that way.

But then, how could you have known that?

[salin]

59. but didn't you say this was someone who wasn't working for the campaign?

then why would this person read "guidelines"?

[BellTry]

51. Not yet anyway

But ANY campaign after the nominee is chosen will become a much larger structure. People will be affiliated with a campaign. Either officially or not is irrelevent.

If you strap an X candidate pin and shirt on a group of volunteers and tell them to go speak to X people it would be a good idea to be sure they will speak in a manner consistant with the candidate. This is something to keep in mind for the future when the Democratic campaign will most certainly be doing this a lot.

[Khephra]

22. What steps are you taking to clean up your own house?

Us Dean supporters would appreciate your wisdom on this topic.

[Ripley]

24. How do you do that in a free society?

You seem to be advocating censorship of what Americans can say when they are volunteering their opinions.

I don't think anyone speaking for Dean would say they hope more soldiers die. Now if the statement was more along the lines of "If the casualties in Iraq really begin to mount, it would not be good for Bush" that is a different story.

Which is it?

[BellTry]

28. How is it censorship

for a campaign to distance themselves from this type of speech? Are you saying it should be acceptable for people in a campaign to make such claims and we should just accept it in the name of "free speech"?

[Ripley]

32. LOL! You're not very good at this are you?

I don't buy your story in the first place. I clearly told you two versions of that sentiment, one a statement of fact, the other (that you imply was used) a blatant disrespect for life if someone were to actually say "yes, I want more soldiers to die because it is bad for Bush."

I've been to meet-ups for Dean and never heard anyone even remotely imply what you are saying. The really far, far lefties who might remotely even say that wouldn't support Dean in a New York minute.

Dean's campaign does not have a problem with his campaign workers mischaracterizing his views.

[BellTry]

45. Look back at some of the draft threads here

Look at how many people were MORE than happy to get US people killed in a draft if it would hurt Bush. You think these people don't exist? Please, go read any of them.

[Ripley]

56. Post me a link.

You think you're baiting DUers into saying that. I have never even once read a DUer say they were more than happy for US people to get killed.

You are twisting people's words and anti-war sentiments into a sick self-serving logic to justify hating liberals.

You need to get clean my friend.

[BellTry]

63. Alright you have me on word play

In the draft threads no one said they wanted US soldiers to "get killed" *in those words*.

However the VERY IDEA of starting a draft to hurt Bush OBVIOUSLY means that people will "get killed" to achieve a political end. Unless you believe a draft won't lead to people getting killed which is naive.

[Scott Lee]

27. There you go again!

How in the world do you propose that Dean, or any othe candidate, for that matter, keep a reign on the mouths of every single potential supporter in all places at all times?

You know what? Your thread is unadulterated flamebait. An intentionally misleading topic with unmatching content, shrouding nothing less than another attempt to slime Dean.

You fool no one.

[rucky]

14. I guess this is why leaders usually don't "empower" their followers

The concept is great in theory, and as long as the morans get shouted down by their own, it still works.

But the spin-sters love this kind of stuff.

[denverbill]

16. Sounds like that person was a plant.

Kind of like freepers who visit DU, rack up a few posts, then make a stupid post about how they want US soldiers to die and the economy to suck.

Then they run to Rush Limbaugh and say "look at what those damned Democrats think!"

And here we have an unsourced story about an unnamed Dean supporter at an unknown meeting allegedly saying she was advocating the deaths of US soldiers.

Tell us more, please. Where and when specifically, did this meeting occur? Perhaps we can verify your account with that of some other participants.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. nice try

:eyes:

Please tell us where and when that meeting took place and the names of the people who organized it.
Imagine! You got to smear democrats and ho-mo-sex-u-als all in one post.

[mzmolly]

26. Marcus? That you?

:*

[Scott Lee]

30. Come to think of it, I don't believe this whole story.

It has "contrived anecdote" written all over it.

Sorry.

[MIMStigator]

37. Neither do I

you can smell it

[deutsey]

33. Nonsense.

But, if it is true, I'm sure the Dean campaign would love to know who this speaker was. Maybe you should find out their name?

[BellTry]

38. Actually I should have stated this before

but this person was just a supporter. Nothing official.

And the meeting took place through my high schools (that I will not name for privacy reasons) GSA club.

EDIT: for a mistake due to so many responses at once.

[Stuckinthebush]

43. How many of the attendees were of actual voting age?

Also, was the speaker of actual voting age?

Just curious.

[BellTry]

54. As far as I know

everyone was (or will for certain come 2004) of voting age. I am 19. I am sure there may have been a 17 year old or two.

[Ramsey]

36. That is idioitic!

Assuming this story has any veracity to it whatsoever.

Let me get the straight... a random "Dean supporter" at a meeting made an asinine statement that the others rightly criticized, and as a consequence, nobody in that room will now vote for Dean? You didn't say "Dean campaign staff", or "Dean spokesperson", or most importantly "Howard Dean".

Pray tell, how can the Dean campaign possibly police the mouth of every person that shows up at every event. The best thing that could happen, did happen. The people in the room told that one idiot to go jump. How on earth does that impugn Dean (or whatever candidate)? Why wouldn't people listen to what the candidate is saying, rather than some random jerk that happens to show up at some meeting?

[CMT]

39. so you label an entire campaign

from an experience with one person.

[BellTry]

42. PLEASE

show me where I have done that?

MY ENTIRE PROBLEM was that it did NOT reflect the campaign. Did you people just somehow TOTALLY miss that?

The problem is - do you think people who are NOT very involved with politics will think "hm that person isn't reflective of the whole campaign". Don't count on it.

[Very Good Dem]

Why are you guys so defensive?

Belltry seems simply to be trying to give Dean supporters some helpful advice. Every piece of criticism or suggestion is not an attack on Dean and his supporters.

Actually, I thought her point was well-taken. If Dean is going to be the nominee, it is important that anyone speaking for his campaign - or even appearing to represent it in any way - has Dean's message straight and doesn't stray off into the wrong message. You can bet that BushRove will waste no time in holding Dean accountable for every word uttered by anyone who even looks like they might have some association with him, regardless how remote or tenuous.

It doesn't do Dean any good to immediately reject and question the motives of anyone who raises a question or concern about Dean or his campaign. If this little bit of advice is too much for Dean and his supporters to handle, just wait till Rove gets ahold of him.

[MIMStigator]

41. Why won't Bell Try give date and location of meeting

?

[BellTry]

44. Already done

read above.

And no, I am not telling you the location of my school. Unless you and others here are equally willing to post such information your selves? (work/school addresses please?)

[MIMStigator]

48. "My school GSA club"

yeah

[Spirochete]

85. An entire staff

can't keep Bush's foot out of his mouth, but Dean should be expected to monitor what every one of his supporters say? How is that supposed to work?

[slinkerwink]

47. This was at a high school, and you're saying this is going to hurt

Dean's campaign just because a high school kid said that????

[BellTry]

55. Where did I say high school?

Try college my friend. Believe it or not a college is actually a school.

[salin]

58. clearly several of us jumped to this conclusion

sorry about that. But it could have been because the sweeping statement of cleaning the house related to a single student/supporter (not campaign rep. or volunteer)... seemed to make sense (in terms of making the leap in common sense) when school = high school. Sorry about reading it incorrectly.

[Ripley]

60. LOL!! Read post 38...'MY HIGH SCHOOL." BZZZT.

Sorry your time has expired. Changing stories in the same thread is not allowed.

[slinkerwink]

62. yep---he said HIGH SCHOOL

[BellTry]

66. We work with the community college GSA

We hold meetings AT THE COLLEGE most of the time. This is mostly because very people from my HIGH SCHOOL are interested in GSAs. Most of the people were COLLEGE and we were AT the college. In fact only a few seniors/juniors ever show up.

Ever tried having a GSA with 4 or 5 people? It doesn't work very well.

[slinkerwink]

68. so? you made it sound like a high school Dean supporter kid

brought down a huge meeting of adults older than 25.....:eyes:

[BellTry]

71. You're the one jumping to conclusions

nt

[salin]

72. LOL I didn't go back and read that... LOL no wonder we thought that

hilarious... Bzzzzt! And here I was feeling a tad sorry for the guy.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. In thread #38

Quote from BellTry:


"but this person was just a supporter. Nothing official.

And the meeting took place at my high school (that I will not name for privacy reasons) GSA club."

Your story is getting screwy now.

[BellTry]

74. Sorry I have edited it for the incorrect writing

You people have jumped on me so fast I have MULTIPLE windows opening/closing/refereshing writing responses back and forth I can't keept track of where I am let alone focus on one thing at a time. Check out how many responses I've made in the last few mintues alone.

[Spirochete]

86. You can't even keep track of what YOU say

but expect Dean to keep track of what everyone says?

[janx]

79. You said it in your post #38:

"And the meeting took place through my high schools (that I will not name for privacy reasons) GSA club."

Maybe you just made a mistake.

[BellTry]

80. Now that I have edited

after having to try and write a gazillion different posts, it is correct.

Anyone from my high school will be going through and will be affiliated my high schools GSA regardless of the joint meetings unless they are a student at the college.

*And to further clarify for future reference. When I say 'at my high schools GSA club' it means at my high schools GSA club. We just don't hold it at the high school, but it is still AT my high schools GSA club. If we were in a park it would still be AT my high schools GSA club meeting AT the park.

We are not assimilated or anything either. We still have our seperate club as they do, but we do joint things.

[salin]

81. I am trying to make sense of that second sentence

but I can't.

[BellTry]

83. Basically

if you go to a joint meeting and you are from my high school you are going through our GSA. In other words you go to the joint meeting, but you are going through our GSA clubs set up with their GSA. It's your affiliation basically.

[salin]

84. thank you that is much more clear.

[killbotfactory]

49. It's a risk of the Dean campaigns approach

For the most part it very grassroots driven and they let people do what they think is best without coordinating the message too much. This, however, can lead to some volunteers saying nutty things. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

If Dean is speaking, they should probably have some guidlines about what is acceptable and what isn't.

[salin]

50. Let me get this clear...

a high school club... a 'supporter' not an official ... presumably a high school kid... makes a way over the top statement.

Hence the candidate (running a national campaign) needs to "clean up his campaign."

I don't know how any candidate is going to 'monitor and respond' to high school kids at their various high schools around the country who might happen to support (but not represent) the candidate from making over the top statements.

When the 'facts' of the story emerged - it seems as though perhaps the original posting and title is a little over the top itself.

[Schmendrick54]

52. I'll get on it right away.

Hello BellTry,

Since I am an empowered grassroots supporter of Howard Dean, I will take responsibility for this "clean up". Please PM me with the identity of the "Dean Supporter" who made that outrageuos statement and I will contact her immediately and make sure that she learns the real position of the campaign on this topic. As a parent of someone who served in Iraq and who may be going back there I can assure you that I am motivated to counsel this misguided supporter.

I anxiously await your information. When I receive it I will repost here to let everyone know that I have contacted both the individual involved and the gay-straight alliance group to reassure them that her statement in no way reflects the position of the campaign. This will also reassure everyone here of the sincerity of your motives in posting this topic, since evidently (based on previous replies) some suspect the veracity of your anecdote.

Edit to reflect subsequent clarifications:

Hello again, BellTry, While I was typing the above, you clarified the situation and my solution no longer seems viable. Under the circumstances, I understand if you wish not to provide specifics. I think the advice of Tom Rinaldo (in the next reply) is much better. Wish I had said that.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. You set yourself up for this one with your header

I am not saying your intentions were bad in any way. But a header more like "Volunteers should watch their words" or "Rooting for the enemy turns off voters" would have gotten you off to a much better start. The implication of your header, intentional or not, is that the Dean campaign was being negligent or complicit in some way. The truth as you describe it is that there is nothing the Dean campaingn could have done to prevent that incident. You really should change the lead.

[BellTry]

57. Your advice has been taken

Obviously some people are so partisan they are unable to see anything as anything other than attack.

[NicoleM]

61. Please don't blame us

for your lack of clarity.

[Ripley]

69. Good one Nicole, but I think the lack of clarify is

incompetence at disrupting. Hoo Boy!

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. A move in right direction

but I still think you are doing yourself a diservice by implying that a candidate or his/her campaign needs to clean up his/her act. WE supporters of candidates have to clean up our acts. There will never be campaign censors assigned to stand by our sides screening our comments on behalf of a candidate. For what it's worth I still reccomend you use a more "supporter centric" header rather than laying the blame for stupid supporter tricks on the head of the candidate and his/her campaign itself. We've been through a lot of that type of false "accountability accusations on DU already today.

The theme is a good one for discussion, but as it is, it is likely to be taken by some as flame bait.

[salin]

70. here is a little background that might help you understand the reaction

some folks are a bit over the top (as the person you describe). Others act that way - but then point to that same behavior to others and say... "See how crazy those people are?!" It turns out that in the second case... someone from a second group... "infiltrates"... makes outlandish claims pretending to be a part of the first group.

THis has happened around here from time to time.

Thus when your description at the top... didn't seem to make sense to folks (because - and I understand why - you were a little vague on the details)... folks were trying to figure out "if you were for real" or perhaps just trying to plant a description (eg of a democratic "supporter of a democratic candidate" who was over the top.)... then when trying to get those details... folks like myself saw the story (granted I read it to be a high school rather than college)... and had a different reaction... a sorta (no offense)... THIS is the big deal?

So you got hit with the skeptics first (example one... eg is this anecdote real?) and with the cynics (like moi) second... (so the person wasn't a representative... so what? not much to be able to do about that :shrug: )

Maybe this explanation helps you understand the range of responses that you received. Sorry - we as a collective group have gotten rather skeptical and cynical - sorry that you received a quick brunt of that.

[Ripley]

73. Read post 38...he said "high school" then tried to

change his story. I don't like a pile-on when unwarranted, but there's a warrant here.

[salin]

76. I just caught that

just because I don't keep multiple windows open to try to keep up with the thread as it emerges... as does our friend according to his own post... I missed that clarification. ;-)

[salin]

75. am really tempted to erase the above thread

as the story keeps changing - and perhaps explaining our inherent skepticism/cynicism isn't really needed. That little high school... no COLLEGE who said high school ... er... it is a high school that sometimes MEETS at the college... and er... we are almost ALL over voting age... could be true... but seems to give more and more fodder to the skeptical / cynical crowd.

[BellTry]

77. If I didn't have to deal with

tons of people at once this would have been a lot simpler.

We have a GSA at my high school, and because of the lack of people (maybe 4 or 5 "regulars) we got in touch with the college GSA and decided to go there most of the time as they are a lot more organized and have a lot more people. Only a few people ever attend from my high school and the vast majority are the college GSA.

Got it now? Not very hard to understand.

[salin]

78. But easy to be unclear

as it was unrolled in this thread... dontcha think?

[PATRICK]

65. a more general issue

Namely that the candidate is stronger than the issue, the tactic, the gaming or exploitiation of events. I don't sense enough confidence in the real gifts of our candidates. This timidity of opportunism and issue baiting can only backfire. That is how these gaffes happen in the first place among amateur pols.

This bad incident is not so important as the attitude. Your man is greater than the small points of opportunism. Both personally and what is at stake the candidate should be much more than this and focus should be maintained. Clinton reasonably floated above the sorry and silly spectacle of the Bush or Dole campaigns. Supporters should support, not keep striking the rock twice in an enthusiasm that really speaks of a lack of confidence confronting the phony media framed "debate".

[jmowreader]

82. Was this the Freepers for Howard Dean meeting?

This reads like something out of a Bush rally: "Howard Dean's supporters hope lots of our soldiers get killed."