A Peace Thread -- B/C I'M SICK OF THIS CANDIDATE-BASHING!!!

[liberalpragmatist]

I'm starting this thread b/c I'm getting disgusted w/ all this bashing of other Democratic candidates! For the record, I'm a Kerry supporter, but to me there's something more important than Kerry beating the other Democrats -- It's the democrats beating Bush. Yet, all over this site, in all these forums, threads are bashing other candidates.

Lieberman is bashed as though he is a conservative Republican (guess what -- he's not? You may disagree with his style and his hawkish iraq views, or even many of his other views, but his voting record shows that he's a CENTRIST DEMOCRAT whose NO further to the right than Bill Clinton).

Dean is bashed by non-Dean supporters (not this non-Dean supporter though) as unelectable, immature, conniving, or slandered as a wolf-in-sheep's clothing.

Kerry is bashed by non-Kerry supporters (many, if not all) as BUSH-LITE and as a pig -- look at his voting record people! I'm especially sick of the Dean supporters blasting Kerry or the Kerry supporters bashing Dean -- any look at there positions shows they are remarkably close on nearly all the issues, w/ the exc. of the Iraq War, where Kerry was for forcible disarmament as a last resort and w/ international support.

Edward is bashed as a crook.

Gephardt is bashed as a sellout and as a DLC-corporate whore when he left the DLC years ago and is far to the left of them on trade and labor issues!

Everybody is bashed. Everybody is slandered as being un-electable. Even the candidates themselves have resorted to this: Lieberman calling Dean and the others unelectable, Dean calling everybody else unelectable, Kerry calling everybody else unelectable!

I want Unity. I want to beat George W. Bush. How are we supposed to present a united front come next spring? For the candidates, I say, how are you going to be able to pledge support and confidence in the nominee if you bashed him as unelectable for months before? I want the Democratic candidate to be able to stand up on the convention night w/ all 8 (or, by that point, 9 if Clark jumps in) other candidates and declare a common front against Bush?!

So, in the name of Peace, Unity, I am starting this thread as a flame-free thread for all those who have something more important on their minds than winning the nomination for their candidate: winning the presidency from the Republicans. This is a thread for all those who are prepared to support any of the candidates for the nomination -- Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, Graham, Edwards, Clark -- and who will do their utmost to see the man in the WH removed from office, not see our party implode.

United we can defeat Bush. Divided we will fail. Let's let Bush prove that he's a uniter not a divider -- a president who unites us DEMOCRATS, not divides us. Let's not give him the last laugh.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. thank you

and amen.

[_NorCal_D_]

2. I agree

I think all of the candidates are great.

[patrice]

3. Me absolutely f- - - - - - g TOO!

People don't get it; they don't have enought to do it on their own; they NEED one another!

Synergy, Synthesis - Yeah that requires a LOT more sustained follow-up and responsibility to keep it from turning into "Repuglican Lite" or loosing track of what it means to be Green or whatever, but there is no other way to survive except to find your genuine community and work together, despite inevitable differences.

[jfkennedy]

4. But why not be critical

I will say the reasons why I am critical. The democrats are at this time in history a party that will win or lose. Period. The Republicans always attack at key times like when the leaders in the party decide things. What better way to silence the liberals and the democrats then to let them do it themselves.

The only time I will name it a group of people, I'm not saying you per se complain is when someone is critical of their formula for winning.

They have a formula that because Lieberman is a Jew anything he says will be wrong. They see the name Lieberman and they say he must be wrong without even reading his ideas. In fact he is not much different then the current 9 just another corrupt politician that sold out at the 2000 election, not one raised a voice in opposition from the Democrats.

So then they say in no way should one be critical of anyone else that they like. The Republicans like that because all the current 9 will not win. Let the Democrats waist their time and energy on those that will not win, then during or months before election time pump up the poll numbers, in favor of Bush then publish the winning poll numbers every 5 minutes on the media, and that means that Bush would of won months before the election.

I hate to say it but Clark is the only one that can win. Why not go out and look for others that can win, such as Clark.

[patrice]

7. I didn't say "Don't be honest."

Just be prepared to honor others with the same respect that you want for your criticisms of them. Get it ALL on the record, and then GET TO WORK TOGETHER for goodness sake. All of this insistence on being exclusively Right smacks of the same , Repuglican, blasphemy that put all of into this situation in the first place.

[indigo32]

9. You're not adding anything of value

by stating none of the 9 can win. That's the point. Those are just words that prove NOTHING. I'll look at Clark when and if he jumps in. Basically I see the same personal, hateful, spinning attacks that the repukes use (I'm not calling anyone a repuke). We can say we're getting ready for that part of the fight... but seriously we have to do MORE THAN THAT if we're gonna win. I kid you all not. We'd better be doing more than testing Repuke smear tactics out on the candidates and eachother.

[liberalpragmatist]

12. It's fine to debate points and be critical

My point is don't just flame the other candidates and divide us more. Certainly you can debate and tell us why you think Clark is the best candidate -- that's the role of everyone to play up their favorite candidate if they have one.

Just don't flame other candidates and act disrespectful. I'd personally prefer if you don't say that the other 9 CAN'T win -- qualify it slightly, say "I think Clark is the one with the best chance of winning" -- the problem with giving a blanket rejection of anybody else's chances is that it makes it harder to credibly support a nominee who isn't that candidate -- that's something that actually has more relevance for the candidates themselves. If, during the primaries, a candidate has been saying that "so-and-so" CANNOT defeat Bush, he can't credibly declare on convention night if he himself isn't the candidate, that he believes "so-and-so" will win, and that hurts us.

But go ahead and say why you think Clark should be the nominee -- just keep it civil and keep your eye on the ultimate goal -- defeating Bush. That's what I'm calling for.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Yes, me too, sign me up.

I suspect that a 1/2 dozen RNC operatives could choose a particular candidate and then proceed to smear the shit out of all the others. That'd keep us busy beating up on each other instead of building up ALL of our candidates and focusing our intellectual energies where they belong....evicting this criminal administration and their enabling Party out of office.

I will happily vote for ANY candidate that wins the nomination...they ALL have qualities and agendas that I can support.

[jfkennedy]

6. That's why I think the DLC may be right on one thing

Though I disagree with 99.9% of what the DLC says. They just came out with a campaign strategy that can win. The Democrats have to NOW pick one to campaign behind then the other 8 or 9 should drop out for I guess the reason your saying 1/2 will complain about the other 1/2, and thus benefit the Republicans.

And they should make the right decision and all drop out and unite behind General Clark who will be the greatest American president ever.

http://antiwarmonger.com

[helleborient]

11. *Sigh*

Why not use this thread as one to talk of unity, as it seems the original post intended...instead of a partisan campaign statement?

[blm]

8. I'll back the nominee

no matter who it is, and have established that long ago. But, I'll be damned if I'll let any potentially harmful lie go unanswered. I fought against lies for Gore and I'll do the same with anyone who lies now.

[helleborient]

10. It's possible to look for the positives

In all of the candidates and talk about the differences without smearing and attacking each other and the candidates.

Attacks usually elicit defensive responses. Respectful questions often elicit thoughtful answers.

I applaud all of the candidates who are campaigning and recruiting workers now...it's not too early to get our message out there.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Serious question

Serious question. I was accused of bashing in a thread where all I did was quote the candidate. I will fully support any Democratic nominee but is it really bashing to make people aware of a candidates words and positions? Isn't that what debate is all about?

[helleborient]

15. If the quote has an appropriate reference, yes, in my opinion

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Thank you. It is important to remember that if your candidate makes it

Thank you. It is important to remember that if your candidate makes it to the general election, you won't be able to drown out the opposition; you need to be able to coherently answer the questions raised, and dismissing anything that is not a positive for your candidate as 'an attack' or 'bashing' will only go so far with the undecideds.

[UrbScotty]

I'm aboard!

I totally agree!

[UrbScotty]

14. I'm aboard!

I totally agree!

[LuminousX]

16. Nice idea, but

it flies in the face of reality. The moment someone mentions a negative aspect of a candidate's record, it will be seen as bashing. Bashing is subjective.

What we need to avoid is the rehashing of the same data over and over. Candidate supporters should create FAQ threads to answer all the most common 'attacks'. Of course the FAQ threads would become combat zones, but if all the core info is in the main post then instead of going over the same arguments over and over until severe frustration sets in, people could just link to their candidate's FAQ thread.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. but, but,

but we are here to discuss! And just cuz you have heard the same discussions over and over doesn't mean everyone has... how many people are joining DU everyday?

[LuminousX]

21. I'm not saying you can't keep discussing

the same issues, but it is better if once an issue is thoroughly vetted, that instead of rehashing it over and over, just post a link to the previous discussion.

If new information or a new angle is found, fine, discuss it, but if someone else brings up that information, they should be directed to the original discussion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. I don't agree

I don't agree; I don't see anything wrong with continuing the discussion. Anyone who doesn't want to participate, doesn't have to.

[deutsey]

17. I agree

We can debate without getting so vitriolic. I hope we can, anyway.

[GOPBasher]

20. Amen!

Thank you for that breath of fresh air. Any of our candidates would be a gigantic improvement over Chimpy. Beating him is much more important to me than who gets the nomination.

[election_2004]

23. bashing has a purpose

Sorry, but there's way too much at risk to let the DLC get away with coronating Willie Tanner.

[goobergunch]

24. As it says in my sig line...

I am supporting Howard Dean for President in 2004 but will endorse ABB for the general election.