Edwards supporters only: What do you think about his comments re: Dean?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

"The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party," Edwards said. "He's a voice. I don't agree with it."

I'd like to hear your point of view on this. Do you agree with John Edwards? Do you disagree? If you do disagree, does this change your opinion of him?

Please, I would ask that all non-Edwards supporters refrain from making comments in this thread. I'd really like to know what people think on this incident. Thank you.

On edit: Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's controversial comment in a speech to liberal activists Thursday that many Republicans "have never made an honest living in their lives."

[Sparkle]

1. First off, did he (Edwards) really say that?

And even if he did, it's no big deal. He's just disagreeing with with what Dean said. No big deal. Repigs and others are just trying to stir up shit within the Democratic party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Yeah, he said it. Direct quote.

[liberal N proud]

7. I must agree, any time the Democrats say something against another Dem

the repukes will pump it up into some big rift in the Democratic Party.
What the Democrats need to remember, it that the Democratic party is the party of diversity.
The diversity lies not as much in race as in beliefs. One of the principles that have made the Democratic party so great in the past is that everyone recognizes that each person is entitled to their own opinions and values.
The repukes have convinced the American people that the Democrats can't even get along with them selves and therefore shouldn't be trusted to run the government.
Dean and Edwards should take this opportunity to display the principles of Democracy and say that it is good and health for America and the Democratic party when one member speak up and says he doesn't agree.
The repukes want to sell this attitude within America where dissent is bad for the party and bad for America.
They are wrong and the Democrats need capitalize on that and sell it.

[aden_nak]

2. See, I am of two worlds on this.

During the primaries, I was an Edwards supporter. But I supported him not because he was the person I agreed with the most, but because I thought he was the person who had the best chance of being elected. I also thought he touched on a number of themes (Two Americas being one of them) that the other candidates couldn't see or didn't know how to phrase properly. At least at first.

I still like him quite a bit, and if he ran in 2008 I would most definitely support him. But despite my being a fairly left-wing person on most issues, I know and accept that he is a moderate (as opposed to the 8th most liberal Senator or whatever other malarky the Bushies pushed).

I don't really see that I have much to agree or disagree with. I mean, we all didn't have a problem saying that about Terry McAuliffe when he was chairman. Now, I feel that Dean expresses thoughts that I share more often than Edwards does, at this point in time. I'm a bit disheartened to hear him split from Dean, but I can't say that I don't understand it, based on his stances and his view of politics.

So in short, I am probably more like Dean now. But I still like Edwards quite a bit.

[PeaceProgProsp]

4. It's totally consistent with two things he has said in the past:

(1) He has always said that Democrats were not going to win by getting in the face of Republicans. He has argued that FDR didn't win in '32 by getting in Hoover's face. He has said that Demcorats win by presenting a message that appeals to many many Americans sense of where their best interests lie. He has also criticized rhetoric that divides Americans along lines that are merely meant to cloud the real dividing line which is class-based: the line between people who work for a living and the already wealthy who get wealth from wealth.

(2) He has said that the democrats suffer by their candidates not having a voice until after the nominating convention. His project has been to make sure that he (and all potential candidates for 08) are perceived as having a public voice.

So, he did two things in that statement: he reaffirmed his core message of not dividing Americans irratiionally (and not distracting them from the real divide, which isn't Dem vs Republican, but between the middleworking class/poor and the people who preserve wealth by screwing those people over), and he pointed out that the public should listen to more than one voice.

I should also note that Dean's statement is more or less consistent with his firebrand politics, which is fine too.

Who wants either of these guys to change their messages? I want themm both to be consistent within their own personas and not become a gray, boring average of the two.

[fob]

5. Could you add the Dean comment he was disagreeing with?

Or point me to where I can find it?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Sure, I'll edit the main post in just a second.

[fob]

8. Thanks. And that's it?

Were Edwards comments unsolicited? If so what's his deal? If not, I can understand being gentlemanly but you don't need to undercut the DNC fucking Chairman.

If he was asked, "Howard Dean said "repukes suck", how do you respond?

Edwards should have said, "Go ask Howard. I'll not put words in his mouth. He's our Party Chair and it's up to him to explain his words. I'll add one thing though, can YOU disprove it?"

Overall though, if coordinated better it's the exact same method repukes use to get nasty stuff out there about our side (lies for the most part though) and then have someone else disavow it to give public cover for a backlash.

I say turn Howard loose with these snippets (of TRUTH) and have a few key dems give the obligatory milquetoast disavowal on the equivalent of page E25.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. My only qualm is Edwards could've put it better.

He could've just said, "I respectfully disagree" and left it at that. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Dean - I don't want a party of robots, afterall. But, to use your word, let's not undercut the man either.

[quiet.american]

12. I like your approach. n/t

[fob]

17. Thanks. And actually looking at it again Edwards folksy way would have

allowed him an even mor pointed attack/disavowal.

I think he could have easily added; "Well, with all the chickenhawks in charge today, I'd have a hard time disproving it myself!"

It's a simple strategy, first NEUTER the question, then DISAVOW, then ATTACK with asking a negative question. It's the standard repuke way only they use it with fiction/lies whereas the Dems have ACTUAL ammunition that makes it more effective.

Listen to a repuke being interviewed you'll hear it. Especially if it's a tough/uncomfortable question being asked(rare).

[question everything]

9. Yes and no

I agree with him disagreeing with Dean but perhaps he should not have stated it that Dean is not the spokesman of the party. Of course, most of us wanted Dean to be the chair hoping that he would give the central office some... yes, loud voice instead of the moderated one and I think that many have so far been disappointed with him. Perhaps we need a discussion about what that post really means, besides collecting money.

I disagree with Dean's comments and am glad that Edwards is on record to say so. It shows that he is determined to pave his own way. Remember when ran many claimed that he did not have much of a track record as a public figure.

I supported him and will vote for him again if he decides to run, and I appreciate his other comments that this is not his main goal now. I objected to his acceptance of the V.P. candidacy since I though that he should build his own path and am glad that he is doing this.

Unfortunately Dean still follows his track record of putting his foot in his mouth..

[Village Idiot]

11. What in the hell is wrong with that?

The Democratic Party has been proud to be the "inclusive" party, with MANY voices...is it so unusual that a few of them dissent?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. I was a Gephardt supporter in the primaries.

And the point of this isn't to be divisive at all, which is why I asked all non-Edwards supporters to keep out. I genuinely want to know what people think. That is all. I'm not attacking anyone for anything.

And I personally don't have a problem with Edwards disagreeing, but it should've been done a lot more tactfully.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. LOL, no and no, though I wasn't opposed to him either.

I thought he got into the race way too late.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. It's absolutely fine. Thanks for being reasonable.

Far too often on this board, people will just blindly accuse you of something and never back off. I appreciate your comments, and I can understand the defensive posture.

Dean shot off his mouth, and although saying something VERY TRUE, did so in an impolitic way. A reporter tried to snare Edwards by asking if he agreed with something that was not only political poison, but also misleading. Edwards misspoke in response. It's as simple as that.

Best assessment I've read so far. Seems to be a clusterfuck all around. I hope they do work it out - we need all of our ducks in a row if we're going to make progress. (And no, I don't mean we need a party of robots. Just a little unity is all I ask.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I appreciate your concern over divisiveness

I only wish you weren't furthering it. OK, so I'm a Clark supporter. How do you feel about race profiling since you sure seem quite comfortable with candidate supporter profiling? "Republicans and Clark supporters" are the issue, you say. Why not throw in racists, neo Nazis, and Fortune 500 CEO's while you are at it? List all of America's problem groups. Sure, I bet you are only talking about DU, right? All of us terrible trouble making Clark supporters who somehow engineered this mini Edwards Dean dust up and now are insidiously manipulating it to our advantage.

How many Clark supporters are you personally upset with regarding this or any other current thread? One, three, five, more? Really, how many? Because if you are going to start throwing around group accusations the way that you just did I hope you have identified dozens of Clark trouble makers sowing dissension on this board regarding Edward's and Dean's comments. Clark consistently gets well over 100 votes at DU whenever someone (rarely a Clark supporter) insists on starting a Presidential poll. So how many of us are you accusing of acting in bad faith? You didn't exactly mince words did you? "Republicans and Clark supporters are the issue", you said, as if your own contribution to this thread is all hunky dory peace and love aside from your calling out the "constant irritation" of Clark supporters.

Let me tell you something. Edwards is not my favorite Democrat. So what? It is way too early to pit one Democrat against another. Come Primary time that will become valid, not now. And it is no more valid to now attempt to pit groups of candidate supporters against each other, which is exactly what your post and others you have made explicitly is doing. I live in New York State but I spent 4 straight days in Pennsylvania right before Election Day 2004 working for your guy and for Kerry. No I won't support Edwards in the 2008 primaries, but if he ends up on the 08 ticket I will work for him again. You are the one being divisive on this thread, pulling in an entire group of fellow Democrats in for attack.

Dean isn't running for anything in the foreseeable future, but possibly Edwards and Clark are. Fine. Same thing goes for Clinton and Kerry and Richardson and Kucinich and Feingold and, and , and... Some of those people have DU supporters you know. Why would only Clark supporters gain by discord between Edwards and Dean? Why must you smear me this way? Yes I take it personally. Don't worry, my ego can handle it. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of someone claiming to worry about efforts made by others to divide us here while making the most blatant such effort of anyone here. If you have problems with an individual, address that individual. If you think his or her motives are less than pure, say so. But I am flabbergasted that you take up board space whining about intra Democratic disruption while simultaneously grouping Clark supporters in with Republicans as the problem.

Edwards is getting heat from a cross section of left of center Democrats right now for his comment about Dean's comments. That may or may not be fair, but Clark supporters aren't behind every bush any time Edwards gets criticized.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. For the record I just counted 28 threads started about this "issue"

Of course this is all overblown. Of course this is a tempest in a tea pot. I do not think there is a schism between Dean and Edwards. No one is perfect in every statement they make off the cuff or even scripted, not Dean, not Edwards, not Clark, not Kerry, not Bush, not McCain, not Frist, no one is perfect.

I just want to point out that it simply became the hot button issue of the day for message board thread chats, and that chatting was not dominated by Clark supporters. Go over those 28 threads and y9u will see that for yourself. There is more than enough blame to spread around for everyone.

[XemaSab]

43. Exactly

It is way too early to pit one Democrat against another. Come Primary time that will become valid, not now. And it is no more valid to now attempt to pit groups of candidate supporters against each other, which is exactly what your post and others you have made explicitly is doing.

In the 2004 election, passions ran so high that it was hard for some of us to suck it up and support Kerry. Strong opinions this far in advance of the 2008 election will make it that much harder for people to support the eventual candidate in 2008.

[PurityOfEssence]

46. Not only that, the real battle for humanity's future is the House in '06

Endless threads about the presidency three years from now and the hard-to-win senate next year just suck so much energy from the real fight.

Out of 435 seats, if we can flip 15 or so (what's the exact number?) we can control the House of Representatives and call Junior as a witness for lying to the entire world. I don't want to impeach him; it's good enough to just force him to answer for his crimes. The Republican majority in the house has been more imperious than any controlling faction in the history of the nation. Just shedding light on the thievery and ugliness will be a good enough to drive the monarchists back under the rocks from which they came.

THIS IS VERY WINNABLE. Why should we give a tinker's cuss about the presidency?

[XemaSab]

47. The presidency's important

but I'd really like to see a blue tide swamp the house next year and make the shrub REALLY defend himself before the American people JUST ONCE.

The thought that third grade children in some future time might read about the Bush presidency as being anything other than a cesspool of corruption and lawbreaking PAINS me.

I want the word "cesspool" to be a damn vocabulary word for the little third graders of the future. That's the only possible justice in this mess.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. I'm with ya

It's just that we, as a people, tend to focus on the stars, while much of the work is done by the workin' folk.

The House is VERY winnable, and if the Dems get mean and focused, those fifteen or so seats out of 435 are very flippable. I want to see Junior testify in public. The iron fist of Republican control has been so ugly that minority reps aren't even a part of drafting legislation. Hell, the nazis even called the capitol police on the Dems to keep them from mounting a defense against an ugly bill; praise be to Pete Stark for standing his ground.

First things first, though, and much power rests in the House of Representatives. Taking the Senate this time would be hard, but taking the house is EASY if done right.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. That's refreshing honesty, and as such, it deserves corresponding candor

My opinions are colored by a long-standing and constant participation in this board. Over time, patterns become apparent.

Board rules frown--rightly so--upon naming names here, so I'll do that privately.

The current fracas was fueled by Clark supporters more than any other group. Do you dispute that? Please do so in an open forum if you do.

Here are my major contentions: Clark supporters target Edwards supporters and never let the latter have a moment of respite or joy, while Edwards supporters don't follow the same scorched earth policy. There have never been that many Edwards partisans on this board, while there are more vehement Clark supporters than those of any other candidate. Does this mirror society? The fact that Clark partisans are better organized or more committed shows nothing more than those two things. Clark wins EVERY poll on this board. What does that show you? It shows me that his stalwarts are more vigorous or whatever. It means nothing more than that.

This incident was one where Edwards was sandbagged in public and asked whether he agreed that Republicans were lazy asshole aristocrats who'd never worked. He should have fluffed the answer, and he made a mistake. The people who have seized upon this are Republicans and Clark supporters. The Dean faction seems to understand this just fine. This is FAKE OUTRAGE. It's akin to the Bush Administration's FAKE FEAR syndrome.

"I love Clark" threads go unmolested; pro-Edwards threads are systematically targeted by Clark supporters. Except for me when outraged over lies about tax cut votes and extreme inconsistency about vouchers, virtually NO anti-Clark threads are ever started on this board, when MANY anti-Edwards threads are, and usually by Clark supporters. Political figures will draw fire from many quarters, but the antipathy of Clark partisans for Edwards is amazing.

Recap: post a "love Clark" thread and it goes uncontested. Post a "love Edwards" thread, and it will be attacked by at least a few Clark partisans. Post "hate Edwards" and it's either done by a Clark supporter or supported by one (or many). Posting a "hate Clark" thread doesn't happen. What immunity do you deserve?

Don't hide behind "racial profiling" arguments; if those of your faction habitually use disruptive tactics, ADMIT IT.

Here: Clark supporters are the biggest plurality on the board. They ritualistically target John Edwards. They brook no dissent, and even if inciting discord tend to snivel as victims if called to account. Please dispute any of these points.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Just got back from our County Democratic Convention

So if you posted to me a while ago I have not been ignoring you, I was out.

The current fracas was fueled by the media more than any other group. After the media those next most responsible for the fracas are Dean and Edwards themselves, since they are accountable for their own choice of words, but they come in a very distant second in responsibility compared to the media.

Clark supporters tend to be "well organized" in that many of us have stored and saved volumes of information on various issues as they relate to Clark. We have done our research, and we keep it handy and we use it when Clark is attacked unfairly in our opinion. To a significant extent Dean and Kerry supporters are well organized at DU also, maybe Edwards too, I haven't followed him as closely. I don't think there is anything wrong about that. To the contrary, I think more activists should "arm" ourselves with source materials and facts that can be presented when Democrats we respect get attacked. I would say the same for Edwards, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, or any other Democrat who has support at DU.

You said, "The fact that Clark partisans are better organized or more committed shows nothing more than those two things. Clark wins EVERY poll on this board. What does that show you? It shows me that his stalwarts are more vigorous or whatever. It means nothing more than that." Guess what? I more or less agree with you, at least indirectly. Clark supporters worked hard to share information about Clark on DU. It is possible that efforts like those have helped to win Clark some support here but for now it is an isolated and unrepresentative phenomena. The degree of Clark's support here does not mirror what is happening out there offline. No arguments about that from me. But the fact is there are a lot of Clark supporters on Democratic Underground, so you pointing to a few who you feel treat other Democrats, or Edwards in particular, unfairly does not support your sweeping accusation against Clark supporters. Even if your opinion of their actions were accepted as valid, those posters would represent only a small fraction of "Clark supporters" given, as you admit, the large number present at DU. In case you haven't noticed it is common for many people to shoot from the hip about many things on bulletin boards. I see that from people of every stripe and persuasion. Less often from Lieberman supporters true because, frankly, I haven't identified any here yet.

So yes I dispute your assertion. Like I said above, 28 threads and counting at the time I posted on this brew ha ha (now there's a term I don't get to use often, lol). Emotions were obviously running high for many people about the comments made by both men. I think it is ridiculous to attempt to pin all this on "Clark supporters and Republicans", and I stand by my comments above regarding how divisive it was of you to attempt to do so.

I agree with you that Edwards merely fluffed an answer AND that it is no big deal, EVERYONE fluffs an answer sometimes. I absolutely resent your statement that Clark supporters seized on it though. Do you not understand the concept of derogatory sweeping generalizations and why it is so insulting and divisive? Have I said a negative word yet, in any of my posts on this thread, about either Edwards or "Edwards supporters"? I won't do that because it is harmful to what we are all working toward. And I won't do that because doing so would be patently unfair.

"I love Clark" threads, as you call whatever it is you are referring to, have not gone unmolested. Far from it. Maybe you haven't noticed those flame fests because you personally are not a serial molester who pops into all of them. I have links to many saved, I can give you those links if you really need them. We all tend to have tunnel vision, we notice what is of concern to us. I have no doubt that Edwards, like Clark Dean Kerry Kucinich Clinton and others, sometimes gets abuse thrown at him on threads concerning him. That is a problem. Clark supporters do NOT ritualistically target Edwards on this board. If SOME Clark supporters do so, that is a very different proposition. Some Kucinich and Dean supporters target Clark, and some Edwards supporters come damn close at times, but I would NEVER say that Dean or Kucinich or Edwards supporters collectively engage in this or that negative behavior toward Clark or Clark's supporters. Especially if I claim to care about Party unity and I do.

I brook plenty of dissent, and I don't engage in taunting of groups of Democrats. I don't call Edwards supporters "snivelers" for example, and I am a fervent Clark supporter. I'm glad you feel strongly for Edwards, I really am, but stop taking cheap shots at me because I am a supporter of someone else.

[Jai4WKC08]

52. When you move from candor to honesty, let us know

I have seldom at DU seen so much BULLSHIT in a single post.

Clarkies did NOT "fuel" the "current fracas." Out of 28 threads counted, TWO were started by Clarkies, and those two merely asking for feedback. It is YOUR delusion that there was any attack implied in the questions.

Clarkies almost NEVER start anti-Edwards threads. Very few of us invade pro-Edwards threads until Clark, or some position of Clark's, is attacked. We never start the 2008 polls we consistently win. I can count on one hand the number of Clarkies who've been tombstoned, and have fingers left over.

Clarkies most certainly endure more than our fair share of anti-Clark threads, and have almost EVERY pro-Clark thread hi-jacked with the same old anti-Clark bullshit lies. Often those lies pop up in thread that have nothing to do with Clark. The same lies, I might add, you're bring up here again. And the same ones YOU have used before in our threads.

Clark and Clarkies are repeated called Repubs (or some variation), as you come oh-so-close to doing here, but apparently don't have the balls to come out and say it plain.

Clarkies are NOT the divisive ones at DU. And I don't give a goddamn who says we are. We have bent over backwards to defend ALL of the good Democratic leaders. We stood by Kerry, and have stood for Dean. We have backed Reid and Boxer and Conyers and every other Democrat with a spine.

Face it. You just can't stand that there ARE more of us here. That we are "more organized and more committed." That's why we're so "irritating" but it's something you'd better learn to live with, because it's a fact of life.

But I thing "fact" is the F-word you're unwilling to deal with. Because there's not fact ONE in your entire diatribe against an entire group of GOOD DEMOCRATS.

I don't expect this post will last long, but I had to say it. I am so thoroughly sick to death of the crap you and a handful of others have been spewing at us, and at Clark, and without a shred of evidence. When you're ready to provide some, you let me know.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. SCAPEGOATERS.

Oooh, now it's been said. People who single out entire groups of DUers to blame for everything that goes wrong on this board.

Yesterday was a big day for supporters of Dean and Edwards to bash each other. To bring in a third group and put all the blame on them is simple scapegoating.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Poppycock

Yesterday was a big day for Clark supporters to try to get supporters of their two most hated rivals to go at each others' throats. Feigning party unity as an excuse to fracture party unity for selfish gain is deplorable. Mercifully, it didn't work.

Two threads were started by major Clark partisans with the clear intent of sowing dissent. How do you possibly bellyache as the victims when you continually start it? The "third group" you speak of was the one that deliberately tried to shove wedges between party members while faking innocence.

Sadly for you guys, the Edwards supporters didn't slag Dean all that much, and the Dean people largely knew the score too. Try again.

How can you whimper about being put-upon when your faction repeatedly attempts to incite discord? Not only were your allies not brought into an independent feud, they specifically and energetically STARTED THE WHOLE THING.

This is tiresome, and everybody but the hardcore Clark supporters and passers-by see this for precisely what it is.

Mods: if the inevitable attempts by extremists compel you to think about deleting this post, please tell me why.

[Adelante]

32. Here I am!!

:hi:

I was one of two Clark supporters out of 25 or 30 DUers who started threads concerning Edwards and Dean.

Here is my thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1829913#1830484

Unfortunately for your little defamation campaign, it is not about what you want people to think it was about. I specifically said, so there would be no confusion, that my post was not about what Edwards said about what Dean said. Too bad you mouth off instead of read. It is about the fact that both Dean and Edwards have their heads up their asses on national security/foreign policy, and it's about the speeches they gave at the Take Back America Conference in which they did not talk about the war in Iraq.

That's what I am concerned about.

I have said numerous times I have no problem with what Dean said and I thought he corrected himself extremely effectively on Blitzer. I have also said numerous times that Edwards has a right to his opinion on what Dean said.

I couldn't care less about Dean supporter-Edwards supporter relations, certainly not enough to take the time and spend the energy to do what I am accused by you of doing.

I care about that we LOST in 2004, because of our ostrich-like approach to security, and I want us to WIN in 2008 by telling the truth of the disastrous place Republican foreign policy has taken us.

That's what I care about.

Yes, I am a hardcore Clark supporter. I am also a dues paying member of this board and a monthly supporter of the DNC.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN POST AND NOT POST.

[Jai4WKC08]

42. Two of 28 threads (by Tom's count)

Started by Clarkies, and neither of the two doing any more than asking for the DU take, on two separate aspects of the issue.

But hey, don't confuse Purity with facts... his mind is already made up and we Clarkies are an "irritant." Poor baby... maybe he should trot right over to some other message board where we irritating Clarkies are not welcome.

I can think of one... freerepublic.com.

I've heard there are others tho.

[CarolNYC]

49. broad assertions with no facts to back them up

Not surprising, unfortunately....Reminds me of the post in another thread (made not by POE but by another vocal Edwards supporter) stating that every thread that even mentions Edwards is filled with Clark supporters saying they will never vote for Edwards. In that exact thread, which mentioned Edwards in the title, and in which there were many posts, there were exactly three posters saying they would never vote for Edwards, one a strong and vocal Clark supporter and two definitely non-General folk. But then I guess facts don't matter. :shrug:

As for all of these threads, it makes me sick reading them. You have this group of supporters against that group of supporters and another group of supporters not reacting to the situation itself but to the way they think another group of supporters expects them to react or the way another group of supporters would like them to react and then there's this group of supporters calling that group of supporters out and another group of supporters calling that group of supporters out for calling the other group of supporters out. (Now you even have Gephardt supporters getting in the mix! :)) ARGHHHH!!!!! What happened to just be a Dem supporter. Can't we forget the primary shit and just react to things as Democrats?!?!? Hell, this country's going to hell in a handbasket and we'll never be able to do anything about it if we can't get together and fight the real enemy!

Here's my take on the situation from the perspective of a Democrat and nothing more (although I know that POE won't think I can have a response as a Dem rather than a so-called Clark supporter, I imagine that other less partisan folks will.)...

Dean, in his usual off the cuff, take no prisoners speaking style said something in a way he maybe should not have. I'm not bashing Dean here. I love that he's willing to get tough and take on the "enemy". I much prefer that syle to the cautious be careful not to offend anyone style and I think we need someone out there getting in the other side's face. I do think he's going to occasionally say things that make some of us cringe...but, when questioned about them, I'm also sure he can handle the explanation without backing down.

As for Edwards and Biden, they don't have to agree with everything Dean says but, as I said in another thread, would it kill these guys to at least give the appearance that they support the Chairman rather than looking like they are running as far away from him as possible? There are ways to disagree with him while still sounding like they support him, no?

No doubt the media had a part to play in this but these guys should be savvy enough to handle something like that, no? Maybe Edwards doesn't have enough experience, but Biden sure does. If they really had a major problem acting like they supported Dean, couldn't they just deflect the question? I've seen a number of possible responses posted here that I think everyone could have lived with if given. My favorite one was, I think, something tot he effect that you'll have to ask Chairman Dean about Chairman Dean's remarks.

That said, I think it's hard to totally go off on Edwards. That "the chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman of the party" comment still hangs out there and I'm not sure I like that...but without knowing the whole exchange as it took place, it's hard to really know what went down or how it was said or how it was meant.

Joe Biden is another story. I've seen the transcript of that interview. There's just no excuse for his remarks. There's no question how he meant them or what he was trying to do. The first thing my Mom said when I spoke to her on Sunday morning was, did I see Joe Biden trashing Dean? She's not a Deaniac by any stretch of the imagination although she likes his combativeness but she was appalled at how it made the Dem Party look. I don't know about Biden. I really liked him sometimes when I would see him on interviews before the General Election. But, geez, when he goes off like that. Argh, I just want to wring his neck.

I just really think that all Democrats have to be out at least giving the appearance that they support each other, even if they don't always agree...and that's all for now.

[Jai4WKC08]

50. I heard something interesting on CNN today

Wasn't paying close attention and had to look up the transcript.

Bagala said, "...the Democrats' only strategy in minority is unity. I mean, when Terry (Holt) was working for the Republicans and they were taking over the House, I'm sure that Newt Gingrich had his issues with Dick Armey and Dick Armey didn't get along with Tom DeLay, but not in public. They stayed together and that's why they won. I think Democrats ought to learn from Republicans on unity."

Seems to me that it was likely a two-way street. Armey and DeLay probably never said a word in public against Gingrich, but Gingrich probably did his part to coordinate what he was gonna say, the substance if not the style, beforehand. And Armey and DeLay (and all the rest) were probably willing to cut him some slack and "let Newt be Newt" in style because he was willing to let them have input to the underlying message.

Also seems to me it goes for all levels. I don't even know what to say about some of the vicious and completely baseless attacks I've seen from one or two of one group against another.

I guess maybe we get the party leadership we deserve.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. SCAPEGOATING.

It is a very REPUBLICAN type of behavior and this post is a perfect example of it. It and the people who engage in it is one of the biggest sources of diviseness and discord on this board.

SCAPEGOATING is the behavior of grouping people into classifications and then accusing the entire group. This is done frequently on this board. Often it's done on the basis of which potential candidate or prominent Democratic figure one supports, but it can also be on other bases. I've seen frequent Republican like SCAPEGOATING of Southerners, Christians or religious people, atheists, DLCers, "far leftists", and others.

The main distinguishing characteristic of SCAPEGOATING is that the SCAPEGOATER judges people, not on the basis of their behavior, or the content of their posts, but on the basis of their belonging to the particular group that is being singled out. For example, the OP of this particular thread could potentially be seen as divisive, or it could simply be an innocent question. In order to figure out which was the case, the SCAPEGOATER asked whether or not the poster had supported a particular candidate. On the basis of this answer, the SCAPEGOATER decides that the post is not meant to be divisive. Had the posters answer been different, the SCAPEGOATER would have come to a different conclusion. In other words, the poster is not being judged according to the actual content of his post, but on the basis of whether or not he can be assigned to a particular group.

In your post, you are essentially accusing me of being a troll, not because of the content of my posts, or on the basis of my behavior on this board, but simply on the basis of the group to which you have assigned me. You cannot call me a troll, or a disruptive poster on the basis of my online behavior or the content of my posts and I defy you to try.

This SCAPEGOATING, this accusing people of being disruptive on the basis of group classification rather than on the basis of their individual behavior is very similar to that of people who accuse all members of a particular ethnic minority of being criminals or welfare cheats, or who blame all of a society's problems on a particular religious minority. It's very similar to the behavior of right wing screaming heads on the corporate media who blame every problem in our society on "the liberals".

Thank you for providing such a good example of where most of the divisiveness and dissension on this board is coming from.

[saltpoint]

14. Clearly only the most unspeakable tortures must be employed.

I just flatly do not like the idea of people speaking their minds in this country.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Yes, because there are no shades of grey left in this country.

:sarcasm:

[DemBeans]

15. I'm of two minds...

Edwards could have said he disagreed with the comment and left it at that. The biggest resentment seems to be the swipe he took at Dean with the "not the spokesman for the party" line.

What's interesting is that if Terry McAuliffe was still at the DNC, we'd all be agreeing with Edwards - in fact, I wish Edwards had expressed this sentiment when McAuliffe did head up the DNC. Since he didn't, it makes his criticism seem a little more personal than it probably was.

I just wish he'd stayed out of it. We're seeing the sweet sight of Republican infighting right now, and creating our own isn't a good tactical move.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I don't disagree, but there's one major difference.

Terry McAuliffe had been chairman for 4 years and accomplished next to nothing. Dean just started his tenure as DNC Chair. Such criticism only serves to neuter Dean's ability to accomplish anything.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. Well put

What this underlines more than anything else is that we really are besieged these days. Part of the dark side of predatory human nature is the picking off of the weak and stragglers. Although our party is statistically much stronger than numbers in the legislature or executive would suggest, the perception is still one of being weak and battered. Bullies love this, and opportunists do to. Face it: this will be the ongoing dynamic for awhile; hopefully our luminaries will be a bit better on their feet in the ensuing ambushes.

[VOX]

18. It's a tempest in a teapot. Edwards and Dean will be appearing together...

Soon in Chicago. Although I don't have a specific available date yet, I know of an individual who attended a Democratic Party meeting in Evanston, Illinois yesterday, where he received a flyer stating, "Chicago Reception with Governor Dean and Senator Edwards - Please Join Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Senator John Edwards for a reception..."

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I also like Howard Dean. He was among the first to speak out against the Iraq invasion (before it happened). I love Dean's forthrightness and passion, but the mainstream media is perpetually lying in wait for Dean to throw some "red meat" to the Democratic base, and to take those quotes and re-contextualize them as inflammatory attacks.

But in no way should Dean be muzzled -- he just needs to adjust a phrase here or a word there to specify that it's the Republican *leadership* that's taken America so far off course.

The Democratic Party has historically been made up of many voices, and it has always been a disparate group, but one that inevitably pulls together for the common good of all Americans. Indeed, Dean is one voice. Edwards is another. And so on.

[Debi]

19. I hope that Edwards (and you) were given the opportunity to read the quote

in it's entirety.

The quote was in regard to people in Florida in predominately Democratic districts having to stand in line for up to eight hours to cast their vote for lack of a number of voting machines. While in the more financially influential republican districts there were many more machines than necessary and little to no wait in line. He commented that people had to work all day, pick up their kids from school or daycare, make supper for the family and that there was not eight hours in their day to stand in line to vote. While some of the affluent republicans have never had to go to work to get their money. (obviously this is not his quote - wish I had it - watched his comments on t.v. - can't remember what channel).

If Edwards was given the quote out of context I could see him being rather defensive, but if he were shown that it was about voter disenfranchisement he may have spoken a little differently.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Actually, I hadn't read the Dean quote fully.

To be honest, all I keep getting from multiple MSM sources is the simple line I quoted above. It makes a lot more sense.

[Debi]

24. As always...they twist the words, add a little piss and vinigar

and then point at us and say "How can you support such a man?"

Will we never learn?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. I never really got my panties in a twist anyway.

I only wish Edwards said it more respectfully, as it does diminish Dean's ability to do his job. But yeah... it's hard. Even for the most polished media critics among us, it's hard to always catch yourself when you read quotes like this. I imagine it's even harder for someone like Edwards, who's constantly bombarded with shit like this.

[Adelante]

34. If you get a chance

Here is Dean's speech at the Take Back America Conference on Thursday:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/2/7565/50042


And here is Dean on Wolf Blitzer on Friday:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/3/153632/2932


***


If you have even more time, here is Arianna Huffington's speech:

http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/2/9141/91624

In my opinion, she was the one saying what needed to be said.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. Thanks for the links!

Much appreciated! I will read them as soon as I get out of work!

[bemildred]

20. Mr. Edwards is right, Dean speaks for the people, the party does not.

One may also infer that Mr. Edwards considers himself
a member of the party, and not much concerned about whether
the peoples voice is represented or not, i.e. he sees himself
as a member of the ruling class.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. Edwards should have kept his thoughts to himself - because

now it is about these people and not about the ideas we are trying to advance. He, JE, has now created a distraction from the big picture. This definitely changes my opinion of JE. He should have acted like Reagan and just laughed it off like a teflon man. Instead he comes across pompous and sanctimonious.

We don't want to squelch Dean ! Or anyone else for that matter.

[otohara]

39. Loving The Media Feeding Freenzy - It's So Fun!!!

Thanks John and Joe - instead of raging against the machine (being the right-wing media), these two work with it.

Downing St. Minutes, who the fuck cares when you've got "democrats" bashing Dean???

[Darkamber]

40. I have no problem with Edwards statement

I also respect Dean. This has been blow way out of portion by the GOP who are looking for blood and would love for a chance to jump all over Dean, who they were delighted was elected as DNC.

Edwards and Dean have much more in common then not and I don't agree with Deans statement when it is taken out of context the way that it was presented to Edwards.

My support of Edwards has not changed by this comment.

[tjdee]

41. How come Dean is the only one allowed to have knee jerk reactions?

That's my big question.

All this ooh and aahhhing about John and whoever else said something about this...is Howard Dean the only Democrat allowed to misspeak/do/say things in the wrong way?

Well?

Because I think Edwards' comments were honest comments, to answer a question. At the end of the day, Dean/McAuliffe/whoever is not speaking for every Democrat. I think Edwards was just saying that. However, I'd disagree with him that the head of the DNC is indeed the spokesman for the party, or is supposed to be.

And it's obvious and understandable that he'd seek to distance himself from Dean's misspeak/misunderstood comment #897978917299128943. :eyes: