You Clark and Edwards people BOTH need to give it a rest!

[Padraig18]

I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the constant back-and-forth bashing here, especially since none of it means jack shit! You know what I mean: "Edwards 'channeled' a child", "Clark is a war criminal", "Shelton attacked Clark", "Clark is PNAC or DINO", etc. .

BOTH of these gentlemen are FINE Democrats who would be fully capable of being Vice-President and, by extension, President. You may argue the relative strengths and weaknesses each has or is perceived to have in given areas, but this ridiculous 'scorched earth' my-guy-is-fantastic-and-your-guy-is-an-idiot stuff is getting annoying as HELL!

STOP IT, ALL OF YOU!

:grr:

[Skwmom]

1. Give it a rest?

I will not remain silent while the corporate media and Bush supporters push to get Edwards on the ticket.

[Padraig18]

2. Ummm...

You need to read EVERYTHING that's being said. Clark is also being 'pushed' just as much, but you likely don't preceive it that way, since you happen to support Clark. As for 'Bush supporters', I see NO evidence to suggest that THEY are 'pushing' Edwards. Like it or not, Edwards IS genuinely popular among Democrats, and the largest plurality likely DO favor him as Kerry's running mate, although that does NOT mean that Clark is a bad guy.

:shrug:

[surfermaw]

7. I only punch back, when Clark is being pushed and Edwards bashed.

[Padraig18]

10. I have no problem with anyone *defending* either of them.

I myself have defended both of them here repeatedly, as any llong-time DU-er will affirm; the problem I have is with those few partisans in each camp who can do little but slam and bash. Though few in number, they are a shrill and vocal group.

[Auntie Bush]

30. Is that post

hypocritical? Didn't you ask us not to push our candidate and stop the bickering and then you do exactly what you said not to do and pushed your opinion which I don't agree with.

Where and when has Clark been pushed by anyone? Seems to me they ignore him. The corp/media constantly tell (indoctrinate) us as how popular Edwards is and we Democrats want him for VP. Sorry....not true. As long as I hear people tell me this I will correct them. Isn't that what this board if for?

This board would be boring and no one would be here if we all had to agree and couldn't defend or push our preferred candidate and give reasons why. Sometimes we have to say something negative about the other person to do so. The main thing is to stop the bickering and forgive everyone and not hold grudges after Kerry has selected his choice. I DO NOT WANT Edwards! I really don't particularly like him! However I think Kerry will put a lot of thought and effort into choosing a running mate. He'll know what's best for our country and when he chooses someone I'll never say another negative thing about him...even if it is Edwards. I would never hold Edwards responsible for anything people say on these boards because it is their right to speak out because this is (or was) a democracy.

I do agree we should not be vicious liars when we speak of others. We have enough of that from Republicans. 'nuff said!

[Cuban_Liberal]

35. 2 major newspaper 'pushed Clark' this week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=483678&mesg_id=483678

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=484679&mesg_id=484679

I found these in 60 seconds in the first 3 pages here. Furthermore, P18 did not 'push' Edwards in that post; he merely reported what poll after poll of Democrats has revealed--- a plurality (he did not say 'majority') want Edwards to be VP. That's a fact, not an opinion...

[Auntie Bush]

39. Wow! Clark got two positive articles in the past week.

It was posted because it was so UNUSUAL to find something positive.
Where have you been since September to not have noticed this? I was referring to ALL the media attention Edwards got during and after the primaries. Only people in a spider hole could have not noticed.

[Cuban_Liberal]

42. He probably got the most attention because...

Next to Sen. Kerry, he got the most votes and the most delegates. Ya think that could have anything to do with it, perhaps? :eyes:

[atre]

38. Schizophrenia...

is not going to help us win this election. Try to step back and view everything from a more rational perspective.

[Skwmom]

45. Rational?

How is pushing to get Edwards on the ticket rational?

[Padraig18]

46. How is it IR-rational?

He has high favorables among Democratic voters and Independents, and he DID get more votes and delegates than anyone else, except Sen. Kerry....

[atre]

50. This is exactly my point

A number of people here blame everyone buy Clark and his campaign staffers for their failure to generate enough votes in the primaries. They blame the media. They blame Shelton. They blame Edwards. It's as if, in these people's minds, there is some elaborate conspiracy designed to deprive their preferred candidate of his "rightful" place as leader of the free world.

That is what is irrational.

I'm not suggesting it is irrational to support Clark for the VP spot. I could care less whether you go around supporting Clark, but until you do so with arguments that didn't sound schitzophrenic, your support is a disservice to him and his cause.

[Jai4WKC08]

58. Same old crap

Some people cannot discuss the issues without attacking the other side. Now we're schitzo and irrational, and maybe just a bit vicariously meglomaniacal.

Geez, even in a thread about giving it all a rest, some people cannot give it a rest.

[atre]

76. No, no, no.... Not what I said.

I'm beginning to wonder if some of you guys even read what I say before . Regardless, you guys must not be reading closely. Or perhaps you're just trying to be inflammatory.

There are many fine Clark supporters. My point is not that it is irrational or schizophrenic to support Clark. It is not. He is a fine candidate.

My point is that Clark supporters who push these elaborate conspiracy theories about the media ignoring Clark because he's so good of a candidate that he would have easily trounced Bush in November is- to put it mildly- paranoid and irrational. This world vs. us or world vs. me mentality is distinctly schizophrenic. I don't think any rational person would proclaim this "fact" of the anti-Clark conspiracy as gospel.

If you disagree... Well, let's just say that I hope for your sake you would agree with that.

[atre]

77. By the way,

I don't attack anyone. I don't even attack any group. The only thing attacked is the conspiracy-minded mentality that many persons here seem to have.

None of my posts in any way lower the level of discussion here, unless you think that pointing out that other people are lowering the level of discussion and how they are doing that is the same as lowering the level of discussion. But I see that you express no anger at the persons who very clearly lowers the level of discussion by submitting bizarre, irrational conspiracy theories, reserving all your rage only for those persons with whom you disagree on the ultimate issue at stake here. So, one must wonder how productive your contribution is to helping us "give it all a rest," as you say. Or perhaps that wasn't something you considered?

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Pot, kettle... black

You're still at it, and have the nerve to say I'm the one who isn't giving it a rest?

I suppose Senator Clinton was irrational and paranoid when she remarked on the "vast, right-wing conspiracy"?

If you don't think the media is corporate and politically driven, that's your opinion. But your messages here don't make that argument, they merely call people who have a differing opinion "bizarre" and accuse us of "lowering the level of discussion."

You can NOT say someone's opinion is the result of a deficient "mentality" and then say you "don't attack anyone." That's just BS, pure and simple.

[atre]

82. What?

I could care less whether you "stay at it," Kettle. You're the only one who seems concerned with people "staying at it," which is why I pointed out why you seemed to be failing to live up to your own standards.

I suppose you expect to end the discussion with an attack on me? And you expect me not to respond because of some ill-defined virtues that you apparently expect of anyone other than yourself and people with whom you agree? Sorry. That just isn't how things work. I don't care. Stay at it. Go for the kill. But don't pretend you're acting above the fray when you do so.

Senator Clinton's remarks about a "vast, right wing conspiracy" were not irrational and paranoid because she was referring not to the maintstream press but to the Scaife machine: American Spectator, etc. And Clinton made these charges with more than vague notions that her husband was being treated unfairly. She had cold, hard facts. Millions of dollars were being spent to investigate her husband for the slightest indiscretions in a clear effort to bring him down. Her claim was later born out when David Brock released his mea culpa. That is not analogous at all.

The media is certainly corporate-driven and they often have done a terrible disservice to candidates. In Dean's case and in Gore's case, the media spin was devastating. Usually, this reflected the effectiveness of Republicans in getting the press to adopt their talking points rather than overt electioneering. Outside of Fox News and sometimes GE's NBC, I wouldn't say that any news station carries their banner.

But Clark did NOT get a raw deal. He received far more attention, in the aggregate, than most candidates (even, I would bet, Edwards, if you added up press coverage since the date Clark entered the race). Certainly, there is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the mainstream press undermined Clark's efforts to be President because he was a good candidate and would have beaten Bush. In fact, all evidence appears to be to the contrary. When he first announced, his support swelled to the point that he was leading the pack, and there was a huge media buzz lasting for a few months. After that initial buzz waned and they saw that he was falling behind other candidates, the media's coverage reflected that fact.

FYI, schitzophrenia is not a "deficient mentality." It is a mental disorder. And I don't suggest anyone has it; only that their comments bear that mark.

[Jai4WKC08]

87. This is just nuts

I'm "the only one who seems concerned with people 'staying at it' "?! How absurd. Not sure who you're quoting, since no one used the words "stay at it" until you did, but this entire thread is all about people "giving it a rest," so apparently there are a number who are concerned.

And don't try to turn this around. YOU are the one, the only one, who has attacked anyone. YOU are the one who said some Clark supporters are "paranoid," "schitzophrenic" and have a deficient "mentality" (and you might want to dig up a dictionary--if someone has a mental disorder, their mental processes ARE deficient). Please point to a single one of my posts which attacked you, instead of defending myself (and friends) against your words. Give me the exact words--not some evasive paraphrase.

Here are some exact words:

Original message: Padraig18 -- "You Clark and Edwards people BOTH need to give it a rest!"

1. Skwmom -- "I will not remain silent when corporate media and Bush supporters push Edwards." (note: no direct attack on Edwards or Edwards supporters, only the media and Bushies)

38. atre -- "Schizophrenia..." (first attack, altho not clearly so until explained in the next message)

50. atre --
a) "...in these people's minds, there is some elaborate conspiracy designed to deprive their preferred candidate of his "rightful" place as leader of the free world." (second attack--implied meglomania)
b) "That is what is irrational." (third attack)
c) "...until you do so with arguments that didn't sound schitzophrenic..." (fourth attack)

58. hf_jai -- Here's a thread asking to give it a rest, and we're being called "schitzo and irrational, and maybe just a bit vicariously meglomaniacal." (no attack, but pointing out the attack on skwmom)

76. atre --
a) we don't "...even read what I say..." (note that the reply addressed precisely what you said)
b) we're just "...trying to be inflammatory" (fifth attack)
c) "Clark supporters who push these elaborate conspiracy theories about the media... is paranoid and irrational..." and "distinctly schizophrenic." (repeating the same attacks above)

77. atre --
a) You "don't attack anyone" but say we "seem to have" a "conspiracy-minded mentality" (sixth attack--there's no basis for our ravings, it's just a flaw in our "mentality")
b) You have only pointed out that we are "lowering the level of discussion" (seventh attack -- our ravings aren't worthy of the otherwise high-level of discussion on DU)
c) You have a problem because I "express no anger at the persons who very clearly lowers the level of discussion by submitting bizarre, irrational conspiracy theories," (eighth attack)

78. hf_jai -- You can believe what you want about the media, but when you call us "bizarre" and "irrational" and mentally deficient, you're just perpetuating the same behavior that Padraig was trying to call a halt to.

I'm not going to get into the media coverage of Clark and his campaign. It's NOT the subject of this thread, and has been argued over and over elsewhere. Start another thread, if you want. Or not. But don't attack us over and over and then act like anyone has attacked you.

[atre]

91. Selective quotations, out of context...

... and you still can't make it into a personal attack. Shocking.

A personal attack is one directed at an individual, not his or her ideas. One is acceptable in the world of debate, and the other is not.

Perhaps that is why you're getting so upset... Can't differentiate the two?

[Jai4WKC08]

94. I didn't think so

You couldn't point out a single attack by me in that entire exchange.

And it's simply ludicrous to assert that a single one of my quotes is taken out of context or is not directed at individuals, not ideas. Maybe not by name, but there's no doubt who you mean.

I stand by what I said. People can read and judge for themselves.

You people....

[atre]

96. Hmmm

I didn't want to engage you in this sort of game (there really can be no winner), but I see you wont are dying to throw some mud and receive a few tosses yourself. How about "you people?" "Same old crap?" "This is just nuts?" "Some people...?" "Pot, Kettle, Black?" "You're still at it?" "That's just B.S.?" None of these offer any substantive criticism of my doubts about the Clark conspiracy meme... And when you notice that your use of the phrase "you people" annoyed some individuals, you used it again. I'm not sure if that is "lowering the level of the discussion," but it must be awfully close.

I still can't believe you fail to see that my criticism is directed at ideas. Actually an idea. That people hold an idea is completely irrelevant to the characterization of the argument as nonpersonal.

The idea that Wes Clark was the object of a vast media conspiracy to re-elect Bush by undermining our "best candidate," I find, patently ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim. None of its assumptions (that Clark was our best candidate) are in any way true. When the claim is repeated, it makes people of our political bent look ridiculous to outsiders and independents.

The paragraph is not a personal attack. You read it that way, however, didn't you?

Note the following exchange:

YOU: "But your messages here don't make that argument, they merely call people who have a differing opinion 'bizarre'..."

Never did I call individuals "bizarre." The anti-Clark conspiracy idea, however, is referred to as "bizarre" several times. I don't think this distinction was lost on you. This sort of dissembling doesn't look good. I guarantee you I'm not the only one who caught it.

Regardless, this is symptomatic of your whole problem. You apparently can't separate an attack on the ideas you hold from an attack on you personally. The first is what drives discussion and debate; the second is completely unacceptable at DU. This is a debate forum. If you can't accept that the ideas you hold will be subjected to criticism (especially ones like that one), then maybe you shouldn't jump around in this mud pit?

I personally don't think of such people by name or even as a group. I know some Clark supporters hold that view, but I also know that not all do... In fact, before making that statement, I couldn't have named a single one of the Clark supporters pushing the idea. If you think it's directed to you personally, you're mistaken. I have no idea who you are, and I don't think I've read a single one of your posts until this very thread.

Tell you what... why don't you take what I say at face value (that I harbor no ill will toward persons holding said view) and we'll let bygones be bygones.

[atre]

83. How about this?

Prove the media conspiracy against Clark. Or, even if you can't reach a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, at least detail all of your evidence in support of that contention so that we can know why it is you feel that way.

Perhaps such a case might dispel people's notion that this anti-Clark conspiracy worldview is irrational and paranoid...

I'm sure there are many people like me who are confused by these bizarre remarks about how Clark was wronged. Here's your chance to make the case.

[Cuban_Liberal]

89. *crickets*

I really didn't expect any Clark supporter to take you up on your challenge...:shrug:

[Jai4WKC08]

90. Excuse me?

Will you please check out the subject of the thread?

Besides, the person who makes the accusation usually bears the burden of proof. Like I said above, let him start a separate thread, and we can go thru it all again.

You people are amazing.

[atre]

92. Two points

1) The person who makes an allegation bears the burden of proof only in a courtroom (and this is only a general rule, subject to many exceptions). The reason is simple. Outside of those confines, there is no clear rule for determining who made the initial allegation. In this case, who makes the "allegation?" The person who alleges the existence of a conspiracy or the person who challenges that person's allegation?

The scientific method is with me on this one: assume all hypotheses are false until proven otherwise. In other words, the burden is on the one asserting something that is testable.

2) It is positively impossible to prove the nonexistence of a conspiracy.

"You people are amazing?" That sounds like a veiled personal attack to me; one directed at individuals rather than a particular idea. I think we both need to tone things down a bit here.

[Cuban_Liberal]

93. 'You people'?

That's helpful.

[bklyncowgirl]

3. Hear! Hear!

[spooky3]

4. Thanks, Padraig, and welcome to DU, bklyncowgirl!

[Bombtrack]

5. I agree with that, and although I have given reasons why neither 1

are among my top 2 choices(which are Graham and Landrieu), I have never "bashed" either one of them personally. I think they could both do the job of vice president fine, I just have given reasons why I BELIEVE they wouldn't be as strong and advantageous in an election.

though I supported them both in the primary (Edwards, then Clark, then Edwards).

But I'd also appreciate it if you and your fellow "Florida isn't worth fighting for" cadre would give that BSing a rest.

[JI7]

14. i don't think he is saying that

i think his point is that we should not become too dependent on winning florida in order to win the election. we need to focus just as hard in many other states. because the republicans , especially jeb bush controls florida it will be easy for them to steal the election in the state even if we really do end up with more votes as happened in 2000. in 2002 terry mcauliffe spend too much on beating jeb bush in florida mostly based on revenge for 2000, but we ended up losing. if he had focused a bit more on new hampshire with jeanne shaheens senate race, i think we could have won that one. and maybe georgia with max cleland also. if we pick bob graham for florida i think dems will start to think florida will easily be ours and put less time trying to win other states and we might still end up losing florida. if we win florida i think it will be with or without bob graham. i agree with mary landrieu being a good choice though. john breaux also if he helps kerry win in the south.

[Cuban_Liberal]

17. I live with him, and you are correct.

He believes that selecting Graham as VP will lead Democrats into an 'all eggs in one basket' strategy, while overlooking the better strategy of '2/3/4 small states = FL's EVs'. He actually LIKES Sen. Graham, but fears much of the mindset that so many Graham supporters fail to see in their fellow Democrats.

As for myself, I can only say that I see the Bush junta *firmly* in charge of the electoral 'machinery' in Florida, even moreso than they were in 2000, and that should give ANY Democrat a reason to pause...

[Bombtrack]

23. You're stating facts not yet in evidence

What you are stating in almost every sentance is based on a feeling, not logic.

"because the republicans , especially jeb bush controls florida it will be easy for them to steal the election in the state even if we really do end up with more votes as happened in 2000" - - How, tell me how they are going to do that and why there is a greater chance of that happening in FLorida than the states(which you neglect to name) you believe deserve a higher priority. All you have to do is research exactly what occured in 2000 and know that it's a completely different situation and the same if not bigger potential exists for some sort of electronic tampering in states like Ohio, the headquarters of DIEBOLD, of which a far greater percentage of the machines are under legitimate democratic suspicioun. But, although you people are the ones saying I don't get it, I'm the one using specificity, and I while I have continued to take apart and question, without direct answer your points, you continue to cloud and muddle the different issues.

Even if Ohio, apart from "stealing" issues,(which you present in Florida as a clear given, but evidently not elsewhere, you don't say), but apart from those issues, even if Ohio was equally likely to go blue by political trends/polls/shifts, which I've stated isn't so IMO, there still remainds the fact that one state has 7 more EV's, one state has a potential vp who's the most popular politician in the state, while the other has noone in contention, 1 state has a tossup senate race, and the other has a repub likely to win.

[JI7]

24. why did most in florida say they want edwards for vp ?

i'm not dismissing florida. my plan calls for competing hard in florida also, among other states. and if bob graham is so popular why did most in florida say they want edwards as vp ? i think more even said hillary for vp instead of bob graham. this doesn't mean bob graham is not popular but it also means bob graham can't gaurantee the state and that others could help in florida also.

[Bombtrack]

25. Most in Florida DIDN'T say that. Democrats who showed up for a meaningless

primary, 15 percent of which voted for Edwards for PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, responded to an exit poll in which some 40 odd percent of them chose Edwards. That has no parallel of what/how a vp helps carry a state in a general election. Is your assertion that John Edwards is the most popular democrat in Florida? I didn't think so. This "point" has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Edwards would not be a bad vp. But Kerry/Edwards was the ticket dujour spouted by the unoriginal media airhead set litterally since before the primaries. Not by democratic strategists, but by the models who pass as newspeople who like to sound smart. People like Campbell Brown. Kind of like "Ohio is the Florida of 2000"

[JI7]

27. not saying edwards is most popular in florida

i'm saying if bob graham is so popular why didn't he get many people saying they want him for vp. and it's not just the exit polls of democratic primary voters. but i believe state polls were done in florida and the difference between bob graham and john edwards for vp was not much. if there was a large difference it would be a different issue, but there wasn't. it shows if we win the state it will be with or without bob graham.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. Bingo!

Go to the head of the class, J17! Florida will be won or lost on Kerry, not on who his VP is.:thumbsup:

[Bombtrack]

71. That's a completely semantic statement.

which you seem to be a fan of in these arguments. Semantics and feelings.

[katieforeman]

88. Exactly.

VP is important because Kerry's running-mate will affect the way people perceive John Kerry and because Kerry's running mate will be out there making Kerry's case everyday. But people do not vote for vice-president. they vote for president. Ultimately, the election rests on John Kerry's shoulders.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. Wait a doggone minute!

The people who showed up to vote were just that--- the people who showed up. The same folks who showed up in 3 OTHER states that voted that day--- all in the South--- ALSO said the same thing FL primary voters did, when asked. You have to deal in FACTS, and those are FACTS, Bombtrack; you may not LIKE them, but you cannot dismiss them out of hand, simply because you didn't like them.

Edwards is popular as hell among Democrats nationwide, and that is not a fact that can be changed by hand-waving and changing the subject; Bob Graham might be a better VP nod to win FL--- MIGHT--- but on the basis of the objective evidence at hand, you can't draw that conclusion. Show me a different poll that says that Graham is preferred by more Floridians than is Edwards, and I'll concede the point, but until you do, I won't.

[surfermaw]

72. Most people

Voted for Kerry thinking Edwards would be second on the ticket, Kerry understands this perfectly

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. You keep SAYING that FL is 'completely different than in 2000', but...

I've seen you make that statement over a dozen times, Bombtrack, yet you never seemm to explain to those of us who are worried as hell about FL being stolen again WHY AND HOW it is so different. What most of us see is this: FL went 'red' in a BIG WAY in 2002 and, if anything, appears to be even more firmly in the grasp of the Bush junta than it was in 2000. Please tell us how come that is not the case.

Thank you.

[Bombtrack]

47. I've said that many key issues are different

But while I go through and adress the different issues pertaining both to the voting authenticity suspicions and general electoral science, you're arguments don't, they are wholly unspecific.

Frankly you're making the charge that an unprecedented first time coming together of multiple circumstances, most, virtually all of which was out of the control of either party until the recounts began is ALL BUT certain to take place again. And I AM the one bending over backwards to disprove that? That's like me having to prove the lockness monster doesn't exist, how about some reciprocation on my many requests for specificity. All you guys seem to keep repeating is Jeb, Jeb, Jeb. Many of you seem to be under the beleif, due to clear lack of understanding of what occured, that the Florida election was autocratically controlled and the results of which were the effortless free will of republicans in the state. That isn't the case. Butterfly Ballots causing many democrats to vote for Buchannon helped Bush and hurt Gore. They are gone. The state, in accordance with a public mandate for election reform in reaction to a scandalous Miami mayoral election, hired a firm to produce a purge list of ineligable voters to be scrubbed from the rolls. Most counties through out the list because of it's questionability, but somewhere between 1 and 30,000 voters were denied the right to vote who should have recieved it. While there has been a dissapointing lack of reporting (or research by the voting rights activist community) on whether the list has been kept, I suspect that the voting reforms that took place did throw it out, as it was a decentralized and unenforced mistake in reforms that centralized the voting more.

But the reforms that did take place were, and this is something you refuse to acknowledge part of a hemogenized process around the entire country, not unique to Florida. But contrary to one charge that has been part of your reparte there can be no new names added to the old list and no new list by law. The list was the result of a public vote.

BBV is an important issue, but it a DIFFERENT issue than what took place in 2000. And Florida has far less paper-trail-less machines as a percentage of the state than Ohio, the headquarters of DIEBOLD, the state O'Dell the chairman promised to deliver for Bush, and there is zero evidence to suggest that Bob Taft would be less apt to juice the machines(an issue which 2000 was not about), and there is everything to suggest it would be easier to for the Ohio GOP party as DIEBOLD is so much more present there,. And there is zero evidence Taft would be less likely to interfere with a recount, (the main issue OF 2000). Florida was the ONLY state that a recount occured in afterall.

[Padraig18]

48. I've never said FL isn't worth fighting for.

Don'tr tax me with that mis-statement, because I've never said that. What I have said is that pinning our strategy on FL is far too risky, given the stakes in this election. I would LOVE to have FL's Evs... I would ADORE rubbing Shrub's nose in it.... but I would feel MUCH safer adhering to an electoral strategy that produced a win WITHOUT counting on Florida's EVs.

THAT is what I have consistently maintained here, Bombtrack, not the 'Florida isn't worth fighting for'. You stand corrected.

:hi:

[Bombtrack]

70. What do you mean by "pin our strategy on Florida" Did I ever call for that

No, I didn't. And I really wish someone would respond to my long previous post with any honesty. #47

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. I think it's a fair inference.

Given your almost adamant position that Graham should get the VP nod, I don't think it would be unreasonable for anyone reading your posts in support of him to assume that FL is 'key' to whatever strategy you might be proposing... :shrug:

[patricia92243]

6. I'm a Dean supporter, BUT the primaries in lot of states has not even been

held yet. Clark, Edwards and anybody else has a right to say what they want to until all the states have had their say (primaries).

[H2O Man]

8. I think honest debate is healthy.

While I agree that there are times that a few people say things that verge on nonsense, I encourage people to take part in civil debate. If I am not interested in seeing the views of any segment, I will exercise my option to not read the "offending" thread. There have been people who have actually dared to disagree with me (grin) on here; I am not offended.... in the case of some of the younger political potential activists, I try to encourage them (& challenge them) to refine their points, rather than rely on the "but Imus is an ass" style. We need people to be going door-to-door soon, and this forum will hopefully help us all develope and sharpen our skills.

[HFishbine]

9. A fair and rational mind can only conclude

they both suck. ;)

[H2O Man]

11. A rational mind

could conclude "they both suck;" a fair mind could not conclude that a rational mind "can only conclude" that "they both suck." It is good to keep in mind that the root of the word "fair" implies not only purity of reason, but by implication the abscence of the foul or negative. The root of the word rational, of course, is a reasoned examination of a subject. Hence, while a person may not like either Clark or Edwards for VP, it would be silly to say that fair and rational minds can not. Words are important.

[HFishbine]

13. A fair mind

may imply the absence of foul or negative intent or prejudice, but that doesn't preclude a fair mind from judging a particular option to be foul or negative. ;)

[H2O Man]

15. A clever word play!

Good stuff! However, while this updated statement is correct, it does not change the error in the first. It's simple: one person can not claim to be either fair or rational in determining the conclusions for others. Respect for other's opinions is a strength. Thus, those who support either Clark or Edwards should accord you the right to your opinion, and you should consider that they may fairly and rationally support the said candidates. Perhaps the fair and rational thing would be to express your beliefs on who you prefer?

[HFishbine]

16. Fairly and rationally?

Dean!

[H2O Man]

20. I like Dean.

He'd make an interesting choice. However, I think that the chances of Kerry winning with dean on the ticket are less than with either Clark or Edwards. I say this because of his recent crash in the primaries. I suspect the public perception of him is unfavorable. It might be better to consider Dr. Dean as the head of health and human services in a Kerry Administration. At the same time, I respect the opinions of those who want Dean as VP. He certainly has the ability to draw significant support from the young and perhaps even the radical left, (unless they closely examine his record as governor, which does not qualify as "radical left" in any sense). But, certainly a fair and rational case can be made that Dean would add a great deal to the ticket .... and more, that leaving him out of the administration would not be a wise choice. Thank you for the frank discussion.

[mobuto]

12. I agree

I'd be happy with Clark or Edwards or someone else on the ticket. This is complete nonsense.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. Thankfully, the VAST majority of Clark people are nice, rational folks.

I get along fine with most of them, and I have repeatedly said that I will VIGOROUSLY support our ticket, regardless of the VP nominee. That said, I will NEVER allow one of the 'scorched earth' Clark types to libel Sen. Edwards, as a few of them here at DU seem incapable of NOT doing every time they post on the subject of the VP nominee.

[mobuto]

19. Uh,

I may be unique here in that I supported General Clark, in fact I worked for General Clark, and I think John Edwards would be a better VP candidate.

I really don't understand the antipathy.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. It's mostly petty stuff

They try to lay the blame for what Gen. Shelton said about Clark on Edwards, just because the two know each other and Edwards consulted Shelton a few times on military matters, and because Edwards claimed he'd tied Clark for 1st in OK for a week, until OK certified the vote, etc. . It's almost always juvenile, petty, silly crap like that that motivates most of the attacks on Edwards. :shrug:

Both gentlemen have their respective strengths and weaknesses, and a convincing case can be made for either one to be the VP nominee; sadly, the fanatical partisans of both fail to see the 'big picture' about either candidate.

[mobuto]

34. This is a surprise?

All of the campaigns were screwing each other over. That's the way the game is played. In fact, where I was, the real dirty tricks weren't between the Clark and Edwards campaigns, they were between Clark and Lieberman, Dean and Kerry. In fact, if I were to single out any one campaign, I'd say Lieberman's was the dirtiest.

But who cares? This is politics.

[Sparkly]

22. WhoEVER!!

I'm sure the Kerry camp will consider every aspect of the decision, including some that actually haven't been discussed at DU, and make a good choice.

What I'm worried about is whether we'll see threads with "I'm having Difficulty voting for ." We've got to realize we won't get *everything* each of us wants in John Kerry or his running mate or his platform or his voting record -- because we want different things. There's a big "Okay then, I'm taking my toys and going home" mentality around here, and I'd hate to see it get worse after the VP nominee is picked.

[H2O Man]

28. I agree that

we have already had the "I'm having problems with Kerry" threads, and that they could pose a problem. I think some could be sincere but immature voters who focus on the small items of interest to them, at the expense of the large issues that involve all of us. More, I suspect that fellows of bad intention could be trying to be divisive. I think that to avoid this type of situation, we need to use common sense, and be very careful not to insult one another. We should all be doing voter education & registration now, and that requires a slightly higher level of conversation than is too often practiced on here.

[Sparkly]

29. True - the big picture tends to get lost

You're right. We need to think about the Big Picture, which is the horrors of the Bush administration and the dangers to our courts, our Bill of Rights, our working people and our democracy itself if they get another four years.

Only a few months ago, it was so clear that "ABB" was the vow everywhere. Now it's "Yeah but Kerry voted for the IWR..."

I think Dean was brilliant at the debate when he asked all the candidates to raise their hands in a promise to support the eventual nominee. Maybe it's time to pledge we'll support the ticket no matter who the VP nominee is. We all have our preferences, obviously; but any Democrat will be well worth supporting to clear the Bushies out of DC.

My hand is raised! Anybody else?

[Jai4WKC08]

31. My hand is raised too

I asked this a while back, on another thread. Unfortunately, not a single taker in the Edwards camp. Hopefully, you'll do better.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone on DU who dislikes Edwards more than I, but Kerry could pick Osama as a running mate and I'd still vote for him over Bush.

I just think his odds of winning wouldn't be much worse in either case. :evilgrin:

[Cuban_Liberal]

37. ABB here!

I'd hold my nose and vote for him if he chose Zell Miller as his VP! :)

[Caromill]

40. Count my hand raised

I was a Clark supporter from the time he announced, and would still like to see him as the VP nominee. However, although Kerry would not have been my choice to make this run, I will work harder than I ever have, and contribute more money than I ever have, to get him elected, no matter who his running mate is.

We CANNOT lose sight of the fact that we have to work together to defeat Bush. It won't happen if the Dems are fractured, as they have been so many times in the past. This will be a close election, made even closer by the Nader factor. Not only can we not afford to lose anyone in the base, we also cannot squander opportunities to go after those undecided 10 percent in the middle who will elect the next president.

[Padraig18]

52. Early supporter of ABB here!

Kerry was neither my first OR second choice but, by God, he's the choice of my party, and I intend to work my fingers to the bone to see that he's elected President in November. I have my own preferences for a VP choice, of course, but who I REALLY want Kerry to choose is the person who HE THINKS will help him the most to win the White House.

Keep your eye upon the donut, and not upon the hole, folks.

[cally]

26. I doubt that Kerry has made up his mind about VP

I want him to pick the candidate that will most help him win! If it looks like we have to win Florida, then pick Edwards or Graham! If it looks like we need the military vote and to shore up national security then pick Clark. Pick Richardson if we need NM. Or any other candidate that helps us win. All of our candidates are decent men and women and would be great for our country.

[JohnLocke]

41. Hi, Padraig!

:hi:
I've never heard of Edwards people calling Clark a war criminal. Or am I just oblivious? :shrug:

[JohnKleeb]

57. Edwards supporters who opposed Kosovo?

Thats hard to find. I am a person who opposed Kosovo and wants Edwards as VP though :D. I am not a big fan of Clark because of Kosovo but I appreciate what he has been doing.

[citizen snips]

62. I agree.

I have never heard any Edwards supporters calling Clark a war criminal.

[democratreformed]

43. Yeah, I said the same thing last week.

You're right - none of it means jack shit except to upset some people on this board.

[Padraig18]

44. Yep.

I often wonder where such palpable hatred for a fellow Democrat originates.... :shrug:

[InvisibleTouch]

49. Either Clark or Edwards would be great

I often wonder where such palpable hatred for a fellow Democrat originates....

That baffles me too. Whenever I see someone really bashing one of our candidates, I get the urge to defend them - whether or not they were one of my original top choices. That doesn't mean I agree with every position and everything every candidate has done - but I do get defensive on their behalf when they get dumped on with such apparent viciousness. The best way I've found to work up some enthusiasm for Kerry, is to watch people laying into him, and I guess in a twisted sense I should appreciate that - but I still find it disturbing when it comes from our own side.

That said, I think either Clark or Edwards would be an ideal VP choice - better even than Dean, who was my first choice for President. Dr. Dean can do more good in another capacity now; Clark or Edwards will help get the maximum number of votes. The only huge mistake Kerry could make, is to pick someone unknown to the general public, someone who wasn't part of the primary race. We have to remember that most people don't follow politics very closely, won't bother to do much research to learn the merits of an "obscurre" choice, and we need that name recognition right now. For those who think the VP choice is irrelevant, I disagree. Maybe in other years, it's not as important (I voted for Gore despite Lieberman, for instance), but this year every little bit helps (I voted for Clinton in '92 because of Gore, at least in part). I would be thrilled and delighted with a choice of either Clark or Edwards this year, and worried, quite honestly, if it were anyone else.

[democratreformed]

51. My problem is that I

don't really know how I feel. So, I have decided to leave it up to Kerry to make the best decision.

With that said, I have something troubling me. My husband said to me last night (or was it this morning) that "People say that he (Kerry) won't really be a good President either." I asked him why they say that but he declined to elaborate. He talks to many more people out in the public than I do - so that REALLY bothers me. I told him I sure don't want Bush again and he, of course, agreed. But, apparently he has been hearing some things. I'm gonna try to make him tell me more tonight.

[texasmom]

73. I agree with you, MedusaSaur,

on just about everything you posted! :toast:

Welcome to DU!

[citizen snips]

53. I hear you Padraig.

But this has been said many times and I think it is not going to stop.

[Padraig18]

54. I'm afraid you're right.

There are some people here who would prefer to take the party down rather than concede that either Clark or Edwards are not Evil Incarnate. Immature asshats, the whole lot of 'em, IMO... :grr:

[citizen snips]

55. Well. . .

I try not to go into Clark the threads and start the bashing. But if see somebody bashing Edwards I am not going to sit on the sidelines.

[Padraig18]

56. As I said in #10, ...

... I have no trouble with someone defending them from bashing. :)

[JohnKleeb]

59. as a netural bystander someone who never supported either man

What is the problem exactly, I think both would make good VPs though I prefer Edwards because he's charming, a good speaker, connects with the crowds good, and IMO very likable. I've seen this go on for a while but I wanna know why. As I say, I prefer Edwards to Clark for VP but could support a Kerry-Clark ticket despite some personal problems I have with Clark, and I do appreciate what he has done for Kerry. I dont wanna get in to that but its nothing really worth discussing.

[Darkamber]

74. I wish someone could give a quick answer...but passion maybe?

I think that both Edwards supporters and Clark supporters are inspired by their choice. I know Edwards inspired me or I would never get active.

Sadly, in the primaries, Clark and Edwards were fighting each other almost more then Kerry. Staring with NH...the old...if..Edwards had come in 3rd instead of 4th..ect.

A few GOP lines have been thrown at both sides. The "Clark is a Republican" bull and the "Edwards is an empty suit" stuff. Most of the stuff used is the stuff put out by the GOP and we shouldn't be using any of it to hurt our own.

The fact of the matter is that both of them are fine men and as Democrats we should be proud that we have them. They do inspire different groups of supporters who hold different things as their main values. Example...Edwards-Jobs Clark- National Security.

What I would like to see is a picture of Kerry with Clark on one side and Edwards on the other side. Then he would be truly balanced.

[JohnKleeb]

95. Edwards really rise in my stock

from being unumbered to being number 3 in the end.

[Darkamber]

60. Here's a suggestion...

The vast majority of both Edwards and Clark supporters are fine rational people. I think most of us would be content with either Clark or Edwards as VP. We lean one way or another, but we would hardly rip into the other candidate if they were picked. We are pro-Kerry or ABB.

I'm an Edwards supporter as my first pick, but what I could do is not respond to the attacks against Edwards that we know are basically GOP statements. Second, defend Clark against any GOP based attacks against Clark by "Edwards" supporters.

Doubt that it will help, but if you respond to a known lie then it keeps going and going and everyone reading it gets so sick that they hope that both Edwards and Clark are not picked.

Though to be honest, I'd be happy to see Edwards get AG. He might be more effective in that job. And I'd like to see Clark as National Security adviser.

[Padraig18]

61. There is no place for rational people in this debate!

j/k :P

[JohnLocke]

63. The rational people started showing up again?

Only reactionaries are allowed here. Those "rationals" -- disruptors, the lot of 'em! :P

[Padraig18]

64. Damn their reasonable eyes!

How dare they suggest that either one would be a good VP pick? :P

[JohnLocke]

65. Only one will live!!

dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!! dEATH mATCH!!

:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[Darkamber]

67. LOL..Thanks for the good laugh... n/t

[VOX]

66. Hear you loud and clear, Padraig18...

Either Clark or Edwards would make a fine addition to the ticket. They both have many strengths and very few weaknesses. In fact, I am hard-pressed to find *anything* negative about either one of them.

It's okay to speculate a bit, but crossing swords over the veep slot is counterproductive to our common goal -- which is getting rid of the right-wing monster that has its tentacles wrapped around all three branches of our government.

:kick:

[JohnLocke]

68. Kick (nt).

[floridaguy]

69. At this point, the "bashing" does not behoove us

Certainly, the Repukes are going to do plenty of that. What I do believe is healthy is a debate over who can help beat Bush. We should be able to do that without bashing our own.

I like Edwards. A lot of people do. However, I believe Clark brings an array of things to the ticket which no one else does.I have lived in Florida for my entire life and I was very involved in the Clark campaign, including at the state convention in Orlando. I also have followed Graham's career in it's entirety.

The obvious plus of Clark as VP is his military background. Although I don't put much faith in polls at this time, a large number of clueless individuals believe shrub is doing a good job of protecting us. I'll venture a guess that the same folks would erroneously believe that Kerry would be weak on defense.

Wes Clark excited Florida Democrats like no one else. If you were at the Orlando convention, you would understand. His arrival was similar to that of a rock star.

Now that I've had the chance to see the grassroots campaign of Kerry firsthand, I can assure you in these parts it almost doesn't exist, whereby the Clark campaign was growing exponentially.

Unfortunately, although I appreciate Senator Graham's service, he does not have the same draw he used to, and I don't think he would guarantee a win in Florida anymore than Clark. Clark brings excitement to the ticket, which God knows we need.

Without a doubt, Florida is important, but it's not the end all and be all, however the ticket surely needs some help in the South and Midwest.

[TreasonousBastard]

75. Bloody Hell !!!!

I ignored most of that stuff, but I see it's alive and well.

I can't imagine why there's this big kerfuffle over who the Veep is going to be. I really can't. Do we have to put up with this bullshit all the way to the Convention?

Even then, I bet there'll still be fighting over the "mistake" he made.

For one thing, who the hell thinks a bunch of people on DU is going to pick the candidate? For another, just how many times has a Prsidential candidate picked one of the losers in the primary as a running mate? Kerry's got a lot of people around him making lists.

Has anyone even shown that a VP candidate actually has any effect on the election?

Speculation is fun, but fighting over a non-issue that hasn't happened yet and we have no control over anyway only makes sense to people who just like to fight for the hell of it.

[edzontar]

79. Oh the Irony!!! Why can't I stop laughing?

I thought--or at least I was told, over and over and over again--it was those terrible "to the left of Mao" leftist-extremist-petulant Dean supporters who had caused all the discord over here.

Well we all went away (pretty much) after the atmosphere became too toxic to bear, and now I stop by for a glance and see THIS!!!!!!!

I guess human nature comes through in the end.

[dryan]

80. What about pistols at dawn guys!

Seriously...I think we need to dial down the rhetoric. Whomever is picked for VP (which is a very important decision considering that 1/3 of US presidents were VPs)needs our support and frankly would be heads and shoulders over cheney.

[grannyfran]

81. Yeah,

Time to remember who the enemy is here and what we're fighting for. Both men have avid, passionate supporters but so does "Damian". Whoever is selected for VP, the Dem ticket needs each and every one of us to beat back the evil one.

[Toucano]

84. I think you're right!

That doesn't always happen. :hi: LOL!

[PopSixSquish]

85. Amen Brother!!!

I supported Edwards in the primaries, not because I thought he'd make a great VP, but because I wanted him to be President. And in the interest of full disclosure the rest of my preferences went this way: Kerry, Clark, Dean.

I think either gentelman would make a good VP candidate as well as a member of a Kerry administration or anything else they decided to do once this election is over. I don't get the infighting and I sure as *&($ ain't gonna contribute to it.