a suggestion re: other candidates' supporters

[ulysses]

Given the personal nature of GD'04, a lot of us are tempted to judge a candidate by his supporters' words here. As a Dean supporter, I know two things - some other Dean supporters have said things by which I would not want Dean himself as a candidate judged (maybe I have too), and some supporters of other candidates that I consider fine candidates (ok, primarily DK, but some Kerry folks too) have said things that negatively impacted my view of that candidate.

I'd just suggest that we not go there. I think we owe it to ourselves to evaluate a candidate based on the candidacy, not on the supporters.

Those who'd like to flame away based on my candidate should feel free to do so.

[xultar]

1. See, the media bias continues...Clark is ignored again..j/k

Just kidding. I think Clark supporters as a group are pretty awesome myself? Who agrees with me?

[GainesT1958]

2. Just because you support a different candidate from me...

Doesn't mean--or give me any "right" to--"flame away" at you...really.

B-)

[xultar]

6. Flamebait

BAIT

J/k

[bigtree]

3. A positive approach

I'm for it!

[NWHarkness]

4. Consider what the curious might think

I think that it is safe to assume that as the campaign season progresses, a fair number of independent voters are likely to peruse the message boards here in an attempt to find out more about the democratic candidates.

Let's think about what message we want these people to leave with, about Democrats in general, and about whoever our eventual nominee turns out to be.

[democratreformed]

7. This a great rationale.

I couldn't agree more.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Thanks for reminding me of why I DID lay off Dean to begin with

I respect many of his supporters. But what soured me on him to begin with was ALSO many of his supporters..then I paid attention to him and liked him less based on my pet issues and concerns..but still for the most part laid off of him.

One more day like today though and I'll spam the fucking place with as much anti-Dean propaganda as I can find just to keep his people busy.

[ulysses]

13. fair enough, I guess.

One more day like today though and I'll spam the fucking place with as much anti-Dean propaganda as I can find just to keep his people busy.

sigh...

[wyldwolf]

8. Oh, I agree

Though I tried to fight it, Dean supporters have tainted my view of Dean.

Even off of DU!

Example: At the local democratic organization I'm a member of, we've had representatives of each of the candidates come to speak to the group. So far, Dean, Kerry, Kucinich, and Clark.

Each was very civil.

However, the "Clark meeting" had an overflow crowd show up - members who had not been to meetings in 6 months or more. After the presentation, many became very big on Clark.

The next week, the chair of the group recieved a very nasty letter signed by Dean supporters demanding an apology for having Clark represented at the meeting!

[PATRICK]

9. Yes it is easy

to slide off the point and get very emotional. I was going to comment on another posting where Kerry was ranted against. It pointed out an issue or two but this was lost in the need to vent frustration and fear.

When a candidate wins we suddenly scrutinize his "electability" and/or issue imperfection. No one has higher fierce negatives than Bush, but everyone seems to forget that. If you coldly wanted to base your vote on lack of negatives and electoral appeal beyond anything else then I might make the case for my candidate Edwards. Or Clark.

Hey, this is the same American electorate that voted in Schwarzenegger and worse electoral atrocities, simply because the alternatives were relatively colorless and excited only the grump factor. As we have seen in Iowa and elsewhere, union leaders and their immediate circles of stewards and the most active have little influence even on life and death issues without a "likable" candidate, a reassuring leader. Whatever your studious or emotional case, you are one vote. The candidates have to prove the case with the voters.
Such is the system that has been made to accomplish something like this. Usually it doesn't work the way the framers and the party wigs
like or expect.

If John Kerry can prove his case decisively with the voters I have no problem. If the others can't, no hindsight, foresight or grumping is going to help anyone except the absolutely most disastrous candidate- Bush. Who needs more paranoia when we have Bush.

We damm well are going to elect one of our decent guys when this process is over. Get your heads straight on that. And no one is going to cruise to a fair win based on anything except our total active support. We are not picking messiahs, we are trying to restore the people's government. What if the chumps on the other side decided to find a "charismatic" figure instead of the entitled garbage they decide they can sell to America just as well?

You can't delegate getting OUR act together to any candidate.

[library_max]

10. You're right /nt

[KC21304]

11. No flaming from here. I agree.

I always thought that things were turned around here. I think we should have had rules about what supporters could say negatively about another candidate, because if we all truly want to elect ABB, all this nastyness is only hurting the party's eventual nominee.

Then I think if supporters break these rules, they can be flamed by the others. Maybe that would have made for more trashing here, but maybe not if you really think about it.

The way it is now anyone can come here and say the most hateful thing ( and they have ) and we have to try to answer, ( or not ) in a civil manner. Either way, all the candidates lose. All this garbage gets aired and a lot of us either seeth and avoid the place, or we try to respond and sometimes get warned or worse.


Just my .02 cents.

Edit, after reading #4, another reason not to let the vile stuff here. Can be used by the GOP.

I know Admin. did toughen up the rules about trashing recently, but I don't know if it was enforceable enough after reading some of the stuff here.

[Adjoran]

12. Fair enough

that's what my vote will be based on.

I've seen supporters of most candidates here. Some go over the top, most are great.

The only ones that annoy me are the ones who are all gung-ho when their guy is doing well, but ready to jump ship the minute the sea starts getting rough. To me, if you are willing to trust a candidate with the whole country, you should be willing to trust him about when it's time to quit.