We cannot let Fear be the driving force behind an election.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

Fear will make a person irrational. When you're irrational you tend to make mistakes they you didn't mean to. Many people are jumping the bandwagon of voting for kerry because some people are afraid without even researching kerry out. An election shouldn't be driven by fear it should be driven by rationallity and reason. But people are afraid in this particular election. I can understand why but sometimes standing with your priciples will ultimately help you in the long run.

[Nashyra]

1. I hope Clark stays in until Super Tuesday like he said

His message needs to be heard.

[aquart]

2. So do I.

[sadiesworld]

3. At least through the Wisconsin Debate

I think he may be ready to "dress down" the media.

[Monte Carlo]

4. I find that insulting, you know.

Unless you can read my mind, I don't think you really know my reasons for my support and vote, and I don't think you know their reasons, either. Maybe, just maybe, there are reasons other than fear attracting people to Kerry.

[jmoss]

37. If America falls in line behind Kerry......

..we're ALL missing the big picture. John Edwards is the candidate who has been so successful because his campaign has been able to pull independents out to the polls. He jumped from 2% to 15% in NH b/c of this. He jumped from 12% to 30% in Missori because of this.

Look everyone: It's great for unity among hard-core Dem's that folks are falling in line behind Kerry. But last time I checked, Al Gore carried virtually NO States among NC, SC, FL, and the ENTIRE mid-west. We need a fresh, positive voice as our candidate. Face it, he's much sharper & presidential "looking" than JK. Petty, though it is, that's how many people (I've spoken to them in many States) decide to vote.

Now I'm not by any means suggesting that the well-informed folks who frequent DU are shallow like this, but we need to stand behind someone, John Edwards specifically, who will be able to bring undecideds, repub's, and simply MORE democrats from around our heartland, OUT TO THE POLLS for us. If they're the slightest bit opposed to GW, or are hard-core ABB, they'll have very little qualms about supporting Edwards for President.

I have been volunteering for his campaign when I'm not in the classroom teaching my 5th/6th graders, and THIS is the message I've gotten.

Much of the Kerry phenomenon is media hype+plus+people not wanting their vote to go for not, by pulling the lever for someone else.

We need Edwards. we need to win States that Gore couldn't win--NOT just focus on the hoop-la of how well JK has done in States where DEM's already have the edge.

[ramapo]

5. Hope is my driving force

It is my hope and belief that John Kerry has the drive, intelligence, and ability to defeat GWB.

The only thing I fear is Bush getting reelected.

Watch John Kerry at the Virginia rally. Would you rather have John Kerry as the next President or are you happy with GWB? It is a simple choice.

[RichM]

6. Too late - it's already happened. Kerry is the guy, & fear is the reason.

Also a dollop of ignorance. For example, the exit poll in Virginia asked voters what their "top issue" was.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/VA/index.html

The largest group of respondents (34%) said "Economy and Jobs." Of those, by far the most, 49%, voted Kerry. Why in the world would they imagine someone friendly to NAFTA & the WTO would be good for jobs?

The 2nd biggest issue was "Health Care" (20%). Of those, 0% voted for the only candidate in the race favoring Universal Health Insurance for all Americans (DK).

A cynic might guess the voters are mainly going for name recognition, and the guy who looks big, tall, & "presidential" on stage. Whatever it is, it sure doesn't have anything to do with "issues."

[jpgray]

7. Politics almost never has anything to do with issues

Otherwise socialists wouldn't be supporting Dean in great numbers. If issues mattered, Kucinich would have been the preeminent antiwar candidate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. Wow only a dollop of ignorance?

I'll take that as a compliment.

[library_max]

12. Yup, must be fear.

Couldn't possibly be because the voters honestly and thoughtfully disagree with you on the issues. Naw, couldn't be.

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[zoeyfong]

52. Maybe, but the only thing JK supporters talk about is electability and ABB

[library_max]

54. Even if that were true (and it isn't),

it's not the same thing as voting out of fear. Naturally Democrats want to nominate someone who can win. They want a strong candidate who is clearly qualified for the office and who can campaign effectively against Bush. Which part of that is "fear"? Or do you perhaps mean that voters were afraid of one of the other candidates?

[tobius]

18. no other

option..? sheeesh.

mmmm.... maybe voters that care about jobs think NAFTA is not the bogeyman some make it out to be.
or...hmmm.. how about voters concerned w/ healthcare may not support the idealism of universal health care..?

not that I'm an advocate for either scenario; but "closed minded" is definately not a term reserved for the right.

“A child of five would understand this send someone to fetch a child of five” — Groucho Marx

[RichM]

21. Re: "maybe voters .... think NAFTA is not the bogeyman...." - LOL!

No, it's just that the voters are ignorant and frightened. They don't even know what NAFTA is, how it works, or who dreamt it up & brought it into being.

NAFTA is of course precisely the bogeyman that "some" make it out to be. It was conceived by transnationals, for the benefit of transnationals, and works by shipping jobs to low-wage countries - just as it was intended to do. Anyone who does not know this lacks the most rudimentary familiarity with the agreement.

Your "point" about health care is a real knee-slapper. If voters are "concerned with w/ healthcare," presumably they want to have access to said care. This is the point of universal health care. It's only when you DON'T have that (ie, all care is private) that you get tens of millions of people excluded from health care altogether. What do you mean they don't "support the idealism of universal health care"? Do you imagine there is a large clamoring in this country for a system that leaves millions entirely shut out, on the grounds that they hate idealism? Do you suppose the population specifically yearns for a system that funnels billions of dollars to HMO's, insurance & drug companies?

No, the reason people vote this way is that they are stupid, & don't understand what they are voting for. They basically know that they've heard of this guy Kerry, and he looks like a distinguished political figure - so they vote for him. Also, they know he's been winning a lot lately. There isn't more to it than that.

[library_max]

22. "Everybody agrees with me, they just don't know it yet."

Let's hear it for the resurgence of the Silent Majority.

[redqueen]

24. It is not a matter of agreement, library_max

There is an objective reality, and that is that WTO and NAFTA and other agreements of its ilk are subverting democracies all over the world.

Those are the facts. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there it is.

If one chooses not to agree with the facts, I suppose they can seek some solace at the nearest flat-earthers' gathering.

[library_max]

28. "Subverting" is not a word that belongs in a statement of fact.

"Subverting" is automatically a matter of opinion, just like "good" and "bad" are matters of opinion. Honestly, the trouble some of us have separating facts from opinions!

It is very arrogant to assume that voters who did not vote the way you wanted them to, voted out of fear or ignorance or any motive less acceptable than your own.

[redqueen]

33. Excuse me?

subvert - v : destroy property or hinder normal operations

How is this not a clear situation? How can you possibly think that when multinational corporations are exerting their will and skirting the law whenever it infringes on their profits, that this is anything but a subversion of democracy and sovreignity?

Where is the subjectivity in this scenario, which is playing out in countries around the world?

[The Magistrate]

36. Indeed, Ma'am

Stating a thing is subverting another can be a proper statement of fact. It is possible to disagree whether such subversion is actually occuring, but in this particular matter, fact would seem more on your side than not. The only cavail could be that in most venues, there is no existing democracy to subvert, but only various authoritarianisms whether individual or oligarchic, who already disregard the wants and needs of their people to the limit of their capability to do, that are bought and sold by these corporations and interests.

[redqueen]

38. Agreed

They don't need to subvert much in some countries, as the corrupting power of capital has already done its work.

My concern is that now that the WTO and these investor protection agreements are in place, these multinationals are in the position to do the same to the closest things to democracies this world has ever seen.

In other words, where before we had a fighting chance at having our needs and concerns addressed. If we do not fight agreements like this, we will not have that fighting chance anymore.

[library_max]

43. If I accept your definition,

and that's a big if, then the subjectivity comes in with the word "normal."

You could make a factual case that the WTO, etc., has changed or influenced the workings of the economies of many nations. But to say that it has subverted democracy, you have to assume that those changes and influences are detrimental. That's subjective. Even if I agree with you, it's still only our opinion.

[redqueen]

46. If? Look it up!

Normal in this case means usual. The usual process of the law is being superceded by these agreements + the WTO.

Are you or are you not aware of Chapter 11 under NAFTA?

[library_max]

49. Okay, so your stand is

that any change is "subversion." Kind of a tough sell, but then it isn't my argument.

[redqueen]

50. No, Sir, that is NOT my stand.

Please do not be disengenuous. And please answer the question, for it will clarify if you really do or do not know what the very basic and unFIXable problem is with these agreements and the WTO.

Do you or do you not know what Chapter 11 under NAFTA enables corporations to do to sovereign government bodies?

[tobius]

53. "enabling corporations to rule the world"

(see post #47) your rhetoric is designed to instill fear.


' " Under Chapter 11 the signatory nations are prevented from "directly or indirectly nationalizing an investment" or taking measures "tantamount to nationalization or expropriation" (emphasis added), and therein lay the distinction. By expanding government responsibility for compensation beyond direct takings, the architects of Chapter 11 have enabled foreign corporations doing business in Mexico, Canada, or the United States to seek reimbursement for any government law, rule, or regulation that impinges upon the company's profits. " "----http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2002/02/02222002/s_46465.asp

rule the world?

[redqueen]

57. It should instill fear, it is happening now.

This is not fearmongering, this is really happening.

Your posting of the text does not indicate you understand what is made possible by that article. Do you?

Yes, rule the world. If you were legitimately no longer subject to the rules / laws of any nation state, what does that make you?

If you hold the power of enormous capital, which can be invested in whatever candidate is willing to work for your benefit in any governmental body, what stands in your way?

[tobius]

59. an election n/t

[redqueen]

60. Which question was that an answer to?

Do you know what Chapter 11 enables multinational corporations to do or not?

And why in heaven's name is it so damn hard to have a discussion about this subject?!!!!

[tobius]

65. this one-

"If you hold the power of enormous capital, which can be invested in whatever candidate is willing to work for your benefit in any governmental body, what stands in your way?"-- an election. Just ask Ross Perot, Michael Huffington, etc...

As to your last question--And why in heaven's name is it so damn hard to have a discussion about this subject?!!!! --- It could be exasperating to you that people that disagree with you are just so "damn ignorant." By the way, more exclamation points (do not =) more persuasive.

Or (just a possibility mind you), informed and educated people may not agree with you.



“All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand” — Steven Wright

[The Magistrate]

61. The Clause Is A Dangerous One, Sir

In unfriendly and artful hands, it can immunize just about any corporation against just about any regulation of any government, thus raising these private for profit organizations above the law. This is potentially a great danger. There is no possible remedy against private abuse but government power, and the freeing of the private corporation from national control is no good thing....

[redqueen]

62. Understatement of the century

thanks for the backup. :)

[The Magistrate]

63. Thank You, Ma'am

Understatement is my stock in trade....

Anything worth saying is worth saying calmly and slowly....

[library_max]

67. Look, I agree with you about that clause.

I think it should be changed. I think it is damned dangerous. But opinion does not magically become fact even if you and I and The Magistrate all share the same opinion. It also does not become a license to call primary voters stupid, ignorant, cowardly, etc. By the way, what makes you think that this one issue is or should be determining the outcome of the primaries? I guess I should have asked that a while ago.

[RichM]

30. Mr. library_max - I invite you to make the case that NAFTA is not an

arrangement designed primarily by transnationals, to work in their own interests -- ie: cheap labor; & corporate evasion of environmental, consumer and worker safety standards.

After you dazzle us with your learned analysis of that issue, I most cordially invite you to make the case that the majority of Americans would not be supportive of universal health insurance (assuming they knew what it meant).

Please - let's hear your reasoning. Until we hear that, you are just making noise.

[library_max]

42. You're asking me to step outside?

Tell you what - you go, and if I'm not there in five minutes, start without me.

I don't have to make any case whatsoever to support the obvious contention that thousands of people who voted in the primaries are better judges of their own intentions and motivations than you are. That contention remains true regardless of my own personal stands on any of those issues.

See, democracy works like this. People hear the arguments, consider the candidates, and vote the way that seems best to them. It accomplishes nothing to rail about how stupid and ignorant and blind they are because they don't vote the way you wanted them to. It's arrogance and nothing else.

[redqueen]

23. "NAFTA is not the bogeyman some make it out to be"

Example of the aforementioned 'dollop'. Just FYI.

[tobius]

39. Madame

please allow me to respond. I must concede that my words " may not support the idealism of universal health care " were unnecessarily sloppy.

I do believe that most people, stupid or not, would favor the ideals of; -health care, food, shelter, education, happiness, love, peace, money, beauty, no pain, great sex, acceptance, ability to sing on key, Winnebago's, immortality, confidence, wonderful smile, psychokinesis...etc..- for everybody. However, even with that as a starting point, there are valid disagreements on how to best achieve or provide these.

ex. - Some are protesting on one side of their placard" NAFTA sucks, our children are starving!". when they reach the end of street and turn around it now says-" Increase funding for the FDA, fast food is making our kids obese!"

I must say that with no fear that this will dent the "objective" and all seeing bubble of intelligence that emanates from your posts; the debating technique you employ is quite novel and fearless. I am at your mercy, please be gentle.







dollop
n : a small measure (usually of food)
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[redqueen]

40. eh?

I didn't catch your drift on some of that, but re: NAFTA let me be quite clear.

It matters not in the slightest what the protesters are wearing, what they think, or what they eat. What matters is that we all begin to recognize this growing danger. When our candidates will not come clean on this issue we must realize that we are being lied to. We are being pandered to.

Why won't any of the candidates debate Kucinich on whether or not you can meaningfully 'reform' NAFTA? This should be a GIANT RED FLAG, but it is somehow not? Why? I say fear, but that's obviously a subject of much disagreement.

Either these candidates don't understand the danger or they are complicit in it. Either way, we owe it to ourselves and our children to find out BEFORE the election.

[tobius]

44. glad to see that

you are open to the fact that there can be disagreement on the reasons why someone may not have to be fearful to have a different stance on an issue.

However just to be safe, at the next flat earth gathering I will pass along to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore..et al . that the large party for the enlightened starts after the "hemp not bombs" meeting ends at Kucinich and Sharptons crib.




eh
Online, used when the 'speaker' has no comment. Can also describe feeling ill or blah
Accompanied with a shrug, means "whatever"

Person 1: ...so then I killed her with her own gravy ladle! What's your opinion?
Person 2: eh

Person 1: How's it goin
Person 2: eh

Person 1: Hey I heard you were gone today, how're you doin?
Person 2: eh..I feel blah

"Whaddya wanna do today?" "Eh," he shrugged, "I don't care." source-urban dictionary.com

[redqueen]

47. WTF?!

I have no idea what you're on about.

Free trade agreements and the WTO are enabling corporations to rule the world. People are as free to recognize this as they are to recognize that the chimp is a total fraud.

I can tell by all the polls and primaries, that most democratic primary voters are choosing to bury their heads in the sand.

Great.

[AP]

8. Thank Bush for creating that mood.

They know what they're doing.

[The Magistrate]

9. Fear Is An Excellent Motivation, Sir

Hate is a little better, and the two are generally twined close in serious situations. The principal motivations of human behavior down the ages really ought not to be discarded when seeking victory in a national election. Hate for the criminals of the '00 Coup, hate for their reprehensible persons, and hate for the harm they inflict on the people, the country, and the world, for no better reason than to line their damned pockets, is in fact the driving force of this election, and the power that will evict these reptiles from the office they have usurped come November.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

13. ?Reptiles?

fear goes both ways, one as you have said and, it can also create a crippling like quality amongst a people...

hate however will uisually over-ride fear...

love can also be a factor but only if the "love" object is in danger/peril or seemingly so

example ... love of the constitution, country or just plain idealist nationalism... fear of the constitution being taken away... breathing hate toward the percieved that are taking away the "love" object (constitution)

how do you mean "reptiles"?

[The Magistrate]

14. As A Term Of Abuse, My Friend

A proper description of creatures so low in moral stature there is no space possible between their bellies and the fecal mire of a pig-sty....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[hedgetrimmer]

17. that was a beautiful description of the bush bastards... right on!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[GreenArrow]

11. fear the driving force behind an election?

No, it's money and power; how to make and keep them.

[mountebank]

56. Fear is the easiest way to do this.

Making people afraid is the time-honored way of getting them to give up their money and power through peaceful extortion. People would never give up their inherent power unless they were afraid.

[Southern Victory]

15. Fear and honesty

I'm affraid of something. If we don't run a candidate in the fall who at least stands up for something consistantly, Rove et al will take the nominee to the woodshed. I can't stand to vote for Kerry. He attacks Bush, then backs off. First he is a war hero then he throws (other people's) medals in protest. His medals are up on the wall of his Senate office. Votes for the Patriot Act then attacks it. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then. Lets be honest with ourselves, we need a message other than hatred for Bush. The Republicans did that with Clinton in '96 and it got them nowhere. Anyone remember the phrase 'Where's the outrage?' With the economy coming back I can't help but dread the possibility of that phrase being thrown out to the American public and shrugs coming back just like the Republicans saw in '96. I won't vote Kerry, I'm not sure who I will vote yet, but it won't be him. If we vote on fear and anger the majority of the American public that isn't in a party won't understand, won't be motivated and won't join us to make the country better, they'll be turned off and vote for a message that we think won't help the country. Let's get it together and get a better candidate and a better message.

[redqueen]

26. Makes too much sense, Southern Victory!

Democrats prefer homecoming contests! Honesty and integrity... that stuff is for losers!


Great post, welcome to DU! :hi:

[corporatewhore]

16. so overtakenbyfearsome try to convince themselves hes a liberal

to validate themselves
even though he voted for slavery outsourcing the theft of land from indigenous peoples giving corporations THE RIGHT to privatise public services the rape of the land and a system so oppressive it drives people to armed revolution ala bolivia when he voted for things like naftagattwto permanent trade relations with china

We are so fearful we are trusting him with the bill of rights which he put through the shredder when he signed PATRIOT ACT

[library_max]

19. You know,

if I lived on Pluto, I'd have trouble understanding what ordinary folks mean by "cold." This may explain the disconnect you experience when ordinary Democrats call John Kerry a liberal.

[The Magistrate]

20. As A matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

Are there any Republicans you do not like?

Your criticisms, to my eye thus far, anyway, have been directed solely at Democratic Party figures....

"The crisis was so grave it was necessary to carry out the sentence immediately, and hold the trial afterwards."

[redqueen]

27. Um

What influence could she possibly have over the Republican Party here? This is the place to try to influence the Democratic voters, in order to reform (hehe) the Democratic Party. That being the case, criticizing Republicans would be a sad waste of time, wouldn't it? The place to do that is open forums, not progressive ones. We all dislike them here.

Just sayin.

[library_max]

29. Well, when people work so hard to help Bush get four more years,

it does make a person wonder. Just sayin.

[redqueen]

34. Who is working hard to get bush 4 more years?

Please do tell.

[library_max]

45. To whom was The Magistrate replying when he raised the issue initially?

The thread's not that hard to follow. You're just trying to get me a Moderator's warning.

[redqueen]

48. Could you please direct me to where the alleged help for bush was?

I missed it.

And you're wrong about why I'm asking, so please don't pretend to know my motivations.

I am genuinely curious as to what you think she said that helps bush. Really.

[library_max]

51. Any pointless attack on any of the Democratic candidates

hurts us and helps Bush. Altogether too many DUers are trying to sell the idea that if this or that long-shot candidate doesn't get the nomination, all "true" Democrats will sit out the election, vote Green, turn Blue, etc. Every attempt to generate disgust against a candidate has that effect whether it has that aim or not. Further, it debases the debate and invites retaliation, which again swells the ranks of the disaffected who would rather sulk than vote.

A week or so ago, one might make a credible argument that one was trying to steer the nomination away from a candidate one felt was not the best choice. At this point, is that still a serious argument? Or is it just a matter of trying to sabotage the front-runner out of spite (if not worse motivations), heedless of the consequences for the general election?

[redqueen]

58. Pointless attack?

You feel the issue of global domination by corporations is pointless?

Here's where that vaunted subjectivity rears its ugly head. We're going to have to agree to disagree on whether that 'attack' is pointless. IMO it most certainly is neither an attack nor pointless, but rather a very seriously important criticism which should be heeded before it's too late to save our party from corporate influence.

Also, I'm not sure that corporatewhore has advocated voting third party in the GE. I'd like confirmation of that before I join you in your charge that she is 'helping bush'.

In the GE, that would be most definitely helping bush, you're right.

As far as swaying people away from a candidate that is not the best choice, I absolutely do think this is still a serious argument. Kerry is by no means the clear winner. We will know soon enough, no reason to rush.

[Iverson]

66. You bet.

Anything a lefty wants to discuss that a centrist doesn't is pointless.

[library_max]

68. Please go back and read post #16, the post we are arguing about.

See if you really want to make your stand defending it as a fair and constructive contribution to the debate. See if you really want to defend "Kerry voted for slavery" and "We are so fearful we are trusting him with the bill of rights which he put through the shredder" as examples of seriously important criticism.

I'm not in a hurry either, but under what scenario do you see Kerry not winning the nomination? And even if he doesn't, these wild shrieks of hatred addressed at any Democratic candidate are helpful to Bush, in that they antagonize the supporters of that candidate and invite retaliation, thereby increasing the number of people who become too disgusted to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it turns out to be.

[Guaranteed]

25. Yes, it will...especially since in their fear, people are picking a very

weak candidate.

It's too late, though. The media pushed Kerry on them, with fear, chanting "Dean is unelectable" into the night (while having no reason to think so). Who the hell knows why. But, things aren't going to end up well. You're right, whenever we act in fear, things go bad. Look at 2002. It's just happening all over again.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BL_Zebub]

32. What you say is Hell's honest truth.

I took the liberty of posessing someone in order to attend a recent caucus and I was rather surprised to hear that not one of the alleged "Kerry supporters" had a compelling reason to vote for a man, apart from repeating what they had heard in the media, namely that Kerry was the "only one who could beat Bush".

One would think that Kerry's true supporters - and obviously there are some here - would be embarrassed to have these fear - powered bandwaggoners giving their cause such a bad name.

[bowens43]

35. Ridiculous.

Kerry's support isn't based on fear.

[mountebank]

55. It absolutely is. Explain yourself.

I'd like to hear your reasons. Kerry's support is based on fear of George Bush and Republicans. Fear of how Karl Rove will smear other candidates (the root of "electability"). So people vote away their power to authoritarians like Kerry (and Bush, who is much more authoritarian).

I guess there are people who are voting for Kerry based on actual issues. But most are voting on electability (read: fear). Check out the exit polls - this is indisputable.

How else do you explain that most voters aren't aware of what Kerry stands for, what his record is? How do you explain that many Democrats are in favor of universal health care and list health care as their top issue and then do not vote for Dennis Kucinich, the one candidate advocating universal health care?

[Nicholas_J]

69. The root of electability is not fear.

It is based on looking at a candidate, and decideing which candidates experience gives them the bes chance of beating the opposition.

The Virginia exit polls made this very cleat. It was not fear of Bush that had people, including Republicans who switched over to the Democratic party, and those Conservative Democrats who voted for Bush in the south in 2000. It is not fear. Virginians clearly stated that it is anger at the Bush administrations policies and not fear.

Voters in Tenn., Va. Worried About Jobs
Tue Feb 10, 6:27 PM ET

By The Associated Press

Who turned out for Democratic primaries Tuesday and why they voted as they did:



Live Results: VA, TN




WHO VOTED: Three-fourths of voters in the two states were 45 or older and more women than men voted in each state. About a third of the voters in Virginia were black and a fifth of the voters in Tennessee were black....

ANGER AT BUSH: More than eight in 10 voters in both Tennessee and Virginia said they were either angry or dissatisfied with President Bush (news - web sites).

WAR IN IRAQ: Just over two-thirds of the voters in Tennessee and Virginia said they disapprove of the war in Iraq (news - web sites)


TOP ISSUES: The big issues in Tennessee and Virginia were the economy and jobs, picked by almost four in 10 voters in Tennessee as the most important issue and a third in Virginia, followed in both states by health care and the war in Iraq.


CANDIDATE QUALITIES: The most important quality for Democratic primary voters in Tennessee and Virginia was having a candidate who can defeat Bush, picked by almost three in 10. Other important qualities for Tennessee and Virginia voters were having a candidate who stands up for what he believes and a candidate who cares about people like them.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=3&u=/ap/20040210/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_exit_polls_glance&sid=96378798

Most of the articles coming out of the last two primaries cite {b]anger at Bush and his adminstration for their coming out against Bush, not fear.

And the reasons that they chose who they chose was having a candidate who they beleive can beat Bush based on experience, not ideology.


Poll: Angry Va. Voters Vote for Kerry
Tue Feb 10, 9:10 PM ET

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) tapped into voter anger and dissatisfaction with President Bush (news - web sites) in Virginia and Tennessee on Tuesday, appealing especially to those eager to win in November, according to Associated Press exit polls.



The Massachusetts senator discovered the same hunger among Southern state primary voters for victory in November and displeasure with the incumbent that he found among voters elsewhere in the country in a string of victories since the presidential contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.


Kerry ran very strong among those who said the most important quality for a candidate was the ability to defeat Bush — claiming three-fourths of the Virginia voters who said that quality was most important and almost two-thirds of Tennessee voters who wanted to support a general election winner.


None of his rivals were even close among those voters — about three in 10 of all Virginia voters and one-fourth of all Tennessee voters. Kerry also ran strong in both states among voters who thought experience was the top quality.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_exit_polls_3

Kerry Claims Decisive Wins In Virginia and Tennessee
Wed Feb 11, 7:22 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!


By Dan Balz and Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writers


Voters in Virginia and Tennessee were more moderate than those in northern states but shared the anger toward Bush and opposition to the Iraq (news - web sites) war of Democratic voters elsewhere, according to National Election Pool exit polls by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.

About two in three voters yesterday said they opposed Bush's decision to go to war, and about four in five said they were angry or dissatisfied with the president.

The economy was seen as the top issue, cited by about two in five Tennessee voters and about one-third of Virginia voters. Health care was second.

Kerry won throughout Virginia, in every region and among virtually every constituency: men, women, blacks, the old, the young, rich and poor, according to interviews with voters. Almost 70 percent said they voted for their candidate because they thought he could beat Bush.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20040211/ts_washpost/a29798_2004feb10

Anger, not fear.

And a desire to run the cnadidate who they beleive will be most able to beat Bush, and who has the most experience to follow through on accomplishing the things that they are most concerned about.

But 4 in five cited anger at Bushj as their reason, the largest percentage of all reasons given for opposing Bush, the economy, the next reason given was given by 2 in 5. Thourt 2 out of 3 stated that they opposed the War in Iraq, it was not cited as the top reason. After Anger at Bush, the economy, and then health care. GIven the results, the voters in these states view Kerry as the candidate most able to do something about these issues.

This anger has been the top reason cited for candidates coming out in droves aganst Bush, and for Kerry in almost every primary or caucus so far. The Reagan Democrats who started the last quarter century of vurtual Republican control of most of the government for this period seems to be reversing, and in the direction of Kerry, wh o is seem as having opposed this "Reagan Republican "trend more than any other candidate who is runnning. No one else has a clear a record of opposing this turn in politics toward the conservative. And Kerry has the best record of opposing this turn towards conservatism, which has finally proven to have been a wrong turn with its move through Reaganomics, through Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, PNAC, and ending with Bush. The futility of conservativism has finally been made clear in Bush. Again, Kerry, more than any other cnadidate running, has the clearest record of opposing these policies. In one way or another, each of the other candidates has at one time or another, embraced more of the policies engendered in this conservatism. Dean with his fiscal conservatism, and his support of the philosophy Contract with America, Kucinich, with his support of the rights ant-abortion, pro-family elements, Clark relatively clean of this, has still at times supported the policies of the prior Republican administrations. Edwards has a cleaner record, but a shorter one of opposing the Bush Administration, though this record has been very admirable, and he was one of the first in Congress to voice his opposition to the debacle in Florida, the Supreme Court decision rendering it legal . This has cost Edwards dearly in the fact that it appeared that the constituency that elected him in North Carolina turned against him from the moment he spoke loudly his anger at the decision in 2000.


Since 2000, andger, not fear has been growing, becoming more intense with every decision of the Bush Administration.

It becomes clearer with each primary, which candidate can address that anger with actions and not words. As Kerry, says. "bring it on". He has dealt with this conservative conspiracy from day one, and he has done so more consistantly and longer than any of the other candidates. And he has faced the ire of many of the same people who are shoring up Bush's conservative agenda. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, and the others are not new to supporting the Republican Agenda, and attacking the Democratic Agenda, and its supporters, and Kerry has been a target of the same people who are targetting him again. And he has done so with a cool head, and done so ably.

Any Democratic candidate who wins the nommination will be targetted by these same people, and they will have all aspects of the Democratic party agenda attached to them. Kerry again, has the longest record of succesfully facing being a target, and sucessfully avoiding having it effect his political career, or his political decisions.

No other other candidate is seen by the public as being more capable of gettting around being targetted. The record on his being targetted and sucessfully beating the Republicans at that game by hitting them back where they are weakest is why Kerry is having the success in his campaign for the nomination.


Most of the other candidates are good candidates. They simply are not seen as being the most capable of beating Bush, by the broadest sectors of the population.

[killbotfactory]

41. Kerry will nuetralize Bush's AWE inspiring foriegn policy experience...

How can we run a guy who opposed getting involved in an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq, and pissing off the rest of the world in the process, like Dean?

It's much better to run Kerry, who supported getting involved in an unwinnable quagmire in Iraq, but strongly preferred more diplomacy.

And if Dean wins, the terrorists have won. Just ask Torricelli.

[Nicholas_J]

70. If Dean wins

He is the candidate, other than Kucinich, who will be most easily marginalized by the Republicans, as a tax and spend democrat.

For a fiscal conservative Dean increased Vermonts government spending from a mere 890 million dollars to 3.5 billion in 11 years, yet there was nothing really significant to show for it. Plenty of studies out of Vermont, ordered by Dean, that showed that there was no planning involved with the health care agenda he had, and that for all the increased spending, he left Vermont with the same percentage of uninsured people as there were when he came into office, relying on taking money from one federally funded program to another through waivers, but not accomplishing all that much by doing so.

There is nothing more appealing to the Republican sensibilities as money spent on poorly planned, ineffective programs. Or the American Public. His signing of civil unions will play more heavily against him than the other candidates, who while supporting gay rights never signed legislation allowing civil unions. This is a two edged sword, with Dean being saddled with legislation he was not involved with getting into place, and avoided while it was being decided. In the past months, Dean has gone from stating he does not suport gay marriages, but as he falls furtther away from success, now supports in order to squeeze every bit of suppport from a minority he has used frequently in the past when he needed it, but actually did little actively to support as Governor, In either case Dean cannot win, any stance he takes on this issue will turn on him if he were to be nominated. His stance on the war can easily be turned on him, as he frequently changed it, for months supporting unilateral action on the same terms thatBush did, and then when it was convenient, seeing that there was a large anti-war movement, distancing himself from his statemetns on unilateral attack, to stating that he opposed the war from the very beginning. Nothing like an inconsistant stance to assist the opposition in marginalizing a candidate. His statements on social security as well.

It was Dean who stated, in no uncertain terms, that we sould go to the UInited Nations, tell them what we expected of them, and then said if they didnt meet the terms we gave them within 60 days, then unilateral atack on Iraq would be the only course of action. In the next breath, stating that we should not go without U.N. permission Bad choice of a word. At least ealy on he used U.N. aithorization, and even that was cutting it thin. He stated he beleived there were WMD's and that Saddam had to disarm or unilateral action would be the only choice.

Then he said that he never beleived there were WMD's.

Said that Saddam constituted a grave threat to the U.S. and its allies and Iraq neighbors. Later said he never saidany such thing.

Nothing is more marginalizable than a record of continual lack of a constant, strong stance.

The thing that Republicans will be most able to use against Dean is the fact that he has not been consistant, that he has not accomplished. This can easily be turned into the semblence of weakness and indecisiveness.

With Bush's attempts to prove he did not go awol, even Deans avoiding of the draft can be used by the Bush Administration. The fact that Bush did serve in the National Air Guard, still plays better than skiing, if it were absolutely necessary to use.

Deans nearly continual changes of position are the most valuable weapon that the Bush campaign could have to use against any candidate.

Dean is the one candidate who the Bush Adminstration wil be able to portray as as a weak candidate, unable to stay the course, or make a decision and stick to it.

[Eloriel]

64. Too late.