frustrated by Democrats

[MBS]

I just had a phone call from a MA-based Obama volunteer. As soon as she could tell I was not wild about She Who Must Not be Named, she went into a prefatory disclaimer, "I'm speaking for my personal opinions, not for the campaign", then launched into a spiel about the importance of stopping SWMNBN . So far I'm in total agreement. THEN she said that SWMNBN was "even worse" than John Kerry on the Iraq War.:argh::grr::nuke: I was way too angry and frustrated to do a good job straightening her out in the most effective way, but I think I did manage to make two points: (a) that SWMNBN and JK are light-years apart on Iraq and war in general : SWMNBN has been consistently a hawk, and, looking over his entire career, including all his votes and initiatives since the beginning of the Iraq war, JK is exactly the opposite: someone who has always worked hard for diplomatic and political solutions to world crises. And, that, especially over the last 2 or 3 years, he has been a leader in the Senate in trying to end the Iraq war. (OK, don't kill me, but I also felt driven to point out that Obama himself had some explaining to do for his cautious Senate votes on Iraq, and I noted that Obama voted against Kerry-Feingold, along with SWMNBN. Yes, I like Obama, but he really is setting himself up for attack by continuing to portray himself as the Only Pure Candidate on Iraq, and to make his "purity" a pillar of his campaign) (b) that JK was a man of integrity, and that someday people would appreciate what he did in 2004, and what he was up against in that very difficult race.
At the end, the caller did acknowledge (reluctantly?) that he was a brilliant senator. ARRGH.
My questions are: . WHY DON'T PEOPLE SEE THIS MAN?! Are Democrats really this brain-dead? WILL in fact they ever appreciate what JK did in 2004, what he achieved despite the Republican slime machine and Democratic "friends" more interested in their own 2008 race than supporting the 2004 candidate?

BTW, Bill Bradley has an interview in the NYT Sunday magazine (not yet available online), and mentioned in passing that Pres. Clinton's vaunted "charisma" only helped his personal popularity, and did nothing for the Democratic Party itself during his White House years.. .

[whometense]

1. Yesterday I encountered an uninformed voter

who was, nonetheless, very interested in politics.

My daughter and I spent the day around Guilford, CT while her cello was being ministered to, and we met this woman who told us (when she saw my JK for President button on my bag) that he was "really scary" because you could see the white part of his eyes.

I swear to god. What do you say to someone like that? I straightened her out, of course, told her what we all already know about what a fine, intelligent, warm, humorous, energetic person he is, etc, etc. I then asked her what she thought of Dodd. Being her senator and all, I thought she might have an opinion. It took her - literally - a few minutes to remember who he was, and then she said he was "a good guy."

Megasigh.

Granted, this was one woman, and also granted that she may have been clinically insane - but we walked out of her store thinking - cripes. That's whose vote you need to win over???

On the bright side, she sure as hell knew who SWMNBN was, and the very mention of the name resulted in vehemently expressed loathing.

I have no idea who these people are who are naming her their top choice, but I've yet to meet one of them.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention, she said she "kind of liked that black guy" but she couldn't remember his name.

[karynnj]

3. That is strange - and pretty hopeless

You see the whites of almost all eyes - if you didn't the eyes would look weird and the irises too big. I actually picked up a department store mailer - every model, choosen fir good looks, has the whites of the eyes showing.

Actually, because he is so tall and his eyes are deep set, it's hard to really see them. The color is really surprising as in most campaign footage they looked dark - and they aren't - as all the really good photos showed, but an unusual color that seems between green and blue. (In NYC he was sitting down to sign books - so he was actually at eye level. )

So, she show a man who blew up frogs as a kid, branded kids at Yale and initiated a war of choice and sent in poorly armored troops because the other guy had scary eyes? Kerry's face can look stern when he is speaking about serious stuff that is killing people, but his eyes and expressions are very kind. (I've noticed the wrikles he does have follow his smile lines unlike others where they seem to follow frown lines.)

[MonteLukast]

25. I love your descriptions...

Especially the stern face/kind eyes combination, and the smile line wrinkles.

[wisteria]

9. Well, isn't that nice, she votes for people based on how much white she sees in their eyes.

i think my blood pressure just went up. The woman who said this must be ignorant or really stupid. To even suggest that as a reason for not voting for someone is loony.

[MBS]

11. Non Sequitur's comment on our political culture. .

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/03/17/

[wisteria]

13. Frustrating, sad and unfortunately true. n/t

[MH1]

2. Sounds like you got another important point across as well -

that campaign volunteers, if they want to help their candidates, they really shouldn't make assumptions about the respondent's feelings about someone else who isn't a candidate.

I'm glad you let that caller have a piece of your mind. Sounds like they needed it.

[whometense]

4. Excellent point, MH.

I've lost track of how many encounters I've had with dems who just assume I'm on board with all their talking-point assumptions about JK. It gets frustrating having to constantly repeat the same points over and over. On the other hand, I find that saying that I've met him personally gives me an almost magical credibility in their eyes. Almost every time, the person will respond, "You've met him??" And then they seem much more willing to accept what I have to say.

In fact, it's odd how easy it often is to persuade them, after that.

[wisteria]

14. Oh, I have used that one also and it is amazing how the tone

of what they are saying and their interest changes. I will not take any nonsense about Senator Kerry from any Dem making assumptions based on misconceptions and lies.

[cadmium]

15. I got a similar call from the DCCC

similar in demeaner--holding Kerry up as the negative standard. I made my point, said that since I was annoyed that more mainstream dems took the republican side on the botched joke response that I was reducing my contribution by two thirds. She cited a supervisor who didn't like Kerry. I told her to tell her supervisor that my priorities are now Keeping America's progress and the DNC. There is also People for the American Way -- among others worthy of support. I told her that I no longer give to the DSCC anymore as a result of their lame response to the joke flap. I reminded them that like many others I only have so much money to go around and that if they want people like me to contribute they can stop pulling this back stabbing shit.

[Democrafty]

16. This is really absurd is the amount of $$$ JK has been able to raise since

'04.

So I really don't even know what they're trying to accomplish with this. Who do they think all the donors who gave all those millions to JK are?

[MBS]

18. perfect, Cadmium!

:yourock:

[wisteria]

29. Good for you! n/t

[karynnj]

5. It bothers my that this volunteer is doing this in Massachusetts

I know that Massachusetts is not in play in the general election, but the nominee will almost certainly be running on the ticket with Kerry as Senator. Kerry is not running for President, so he is not a competitor. It also is pretty ungracious of the Obama people. They are oblivious if they don't see that Kerry gave Obama the opportunity that gave him this chance.

Your answer was excellent. Are you sure this was MA based? This person really is doing Obama harm with that kind of arrogance. I'm beginning to think we will be totally sick of the 3 frontrunners by next year.

[MBS]

6. yes, she made a point of telling me that

she'd lived and voted in MA since the 70's , as a way to demonstrate her knowledge of Kerry (!!!). (When I brought up JK's lifetime record of fighting for peace, she did acknowledge that he got his start as a peace activist, implying that she considered herself one too). I like whometense's method of explaining that she's met him. I'll try that next time.

Oh, yeah, another moment that displayed her utter lack of interest in learning anything about the person at the other end of the line. She chastized me that it was "time for me to engage" (she really lost me, then, as she didn't even bother to ask what I'd been doing the last 4 years or more. . )

I chalk a lot of this up to her being just an individually sanctimoniuous, and also, idiotic volunteer (I'd say "inexperienced" but she made a point of brandishing her long-time-activist credentials). So perhaps it's a mistake to draw too general an implication from this woman, except for this: This Democratic habit of campaigning by claiming that Candidate X is great because they'd be SO much better than the Dem candidate in the LAST presidential race -- and the dump-the-loser mindset that goes with it -- has GOT TO STOP.

[Mass]

7. email the Obama campaign. There have been many complaints about how

the Obama's supporters were behaving when they call for money. I think it comes from some overzealous supporters, but it may be good to let them know that this is working against their candidate.

Obama is my favorite among the three candidates (largely by default), but, each time I think I am ready to really support him, I meet somebody exactly in the same mold this person is, and I stay undecided or wishing for Gore to run.

[cadmium]

20. I just emailed them with the gist of our concerns. If I get no

response at all I will call. At this time I am planning to support Obama.

[karynnj]

12. Isn't that kind of an understatement on one level

"she did acknowledge that he got his start as a peace activist" - as your comments in the op prove.

This is brainless. I think Kerry's speeches in fall 2002 were as anti-war as what Obama said. He wasn't faced with the vote and I'm not sure he wouldn't have followed the party leaders as he did on Kerry/Feingold - and to my knowledge he never said he was wrong to say a deadline was wrong.

[wisteria]

10. You make a good point. I was thinking about that myself. This coming from Mass. is wrong.

I hate the idea that it is OK to belittle others in order to make yourself appear better than the others.

[rox63]

22. Someone should remind them that we've been voting for JK here in MA for a long time

And they won't make any friends by going out of their way to diss him to MA voters. We like our Senators just fine, thank you. And if they want to get in JK's good graces as regards a possible future endorsement, this is not the way to do it.

[wisteria]

8. To many Democrats don't care about the characteristics that should matter in a candidate

they only care about winning. Good for you for sticking up for JK. It seems to be that the new idea is to run as far away from the type of campaign Senator Kerry ran in 2004 and claim X candidate is better and clearer on the issues- especially on the Iraq War. Well, IMO, X candidate is not better and I resent them bashing Kerry to promote candidate X.
Good for you for pointing out how phony Obama looks because now he is presenting himself as the anti-war candidate when we all know how he voted in June using the very words of the Republicans and how careful and measured his votes were even before than.

I am disgusted already with the majority of the candidates running in 08 and all the pundit chatter. Let any of them call me asking for money mentioning Senator Kerry in a negative way to raise that money and I will give them nothing but the truth and no money.

[rockymountaindem]

17. Some Democrats are concerned mostly with just winning because we never win

Beggars can't be choosers. Prior to this election, my county had 15 State Reps. and Senators. Only one of them was a Democrat, and he only won by squeakers in the one district that was designed to capture *all* of the Dem voting areas in my county (the largest by population in Colorado). After the Repub. implosion in 2006 we now have a whopping 3 seats. I'm telling you (and anybody who will listen) it's rough out here for us in red states. Please understand.

[MBS]

19. I know this, too,

having lived in "red" districts most of my life, until recently. But, all the more reason that Dems should understand that it's an uphill battle, that we all have to pull together, and that you get nowhere by blaming your own worthy, hard-working candidates and sabotaging and dissing your own people, especially your own nominees, at every turn. For me, the most frustrating folks are Dems in "blue" cities or states who never even meet Republicans, and have no idea -- and I mean NO idea -- what's out there in most of the country, and what kind of effort, courage, and savvy it will take, to win them over. They continue to think that 2004 should have been a cake-walk, and blame Kerry, not themselves or the electorate generally, for the outcome.

On the other hand, the answer to winning is NOT to just echo the Republican talking points, especially not about fellow candidates. (I think now of SWMNBN response to the botched joke episode. . )
Dems desperately need to show a backbone (one reason I"m totally behind KarenDC and cohort's "backbone" campaign), and ultimately will be rewarded for doing so. But the strategic dilemma of how to do that, AND bring more of the red states on board to our side, is not to be minimized (which is what the "pure blue" residents seem not to get)

[Mass]

21. What is the goal of winning with people who have a different agenda.

Is it to have somebody with a Democratic label who will vote against anything that is remotely progressive rather than explain to people what it is the Democrats are trying to do? May be Salazar is a Democrat, but he had a lot of trouble supporting the Reid resolution on Iraq (he was actually close to vote with Lieberman, Nelson, and Pryor on this and even withdrew his sponsorship).

In the 08 budget reduction, a Sanders proposition who would have reduced property tax and increased special ed funds with cutting tax funds for people who make more than $1 M by year was defeated with the help of 11 democrats, including Salazar.

In the same budget, he voted for a bill by some Democrats to extend taxcut of the estate tax for after 2010 (what is the emergency?)

(and by the way, Lieberman voted for the Sanders resolution and against the Nelson resolution, while Webb and Tester voted against the Sanders resolution and Tester voted for the Nelson resolution).

I understand that he would not support gay marriage, or even civil union, that he would be tough on "pro-life" issues, or on gun issues, but these are pure bread and butter issues, and for the Reid bill, something that is purely inoffensive (not even a deadline, a goal, and it lets Bush the possibility to decide how many soldiers will stay. What less did Salazar want?).

There is a problem with priorities here. We need to know what we stand for and explain to people the what it is we stand for so that they can see whether they relate or not. If they relate with the GOP agenda, so be it. There is no point to elect GOP like people just to give Reid the title of Majority leader if they cannot do anything.

It seems to me that too many people want to have a Democrat elected for the sake of the word, in which case, we will never achieve anything, neither getting out of Iraq nor helping the economy and people who need it. The emergency is to know what we need and debate that so that people know what we need and want.

[fedupinBushcountry]

23. The vote on the Sanders amendment

really pissed me off. Why would they vote no on this? Who are they supporting the regular people or their rich campaign donaters, I think we all know the answer. That is what makes me so mad and my new Senator (Webb) voted against this.

[MonteLukast]

24. Which county do you live in?

I'm from Colorado, too, and I thought things were actually pretty rosy for Denver-area Dems. Maybe you live in Colorado Springs, where the Dem picture is decidedly bleaker?

[rockymountaindem]

27. Yep. I'm from El Paso county

Evidently we're the largest county by population now. Wierd, eh?

[wisteria]

28. Yes, I understand that frustration, but bashing someone else in order

to make another person look better is just wrong. Are you saying it should be ok for Obama or even Hillary supporters to raise money by bashing Kerry?

You know, there were many things that went right in 04 and some things that went wrong. The Dem party should shoulder some of the blame for the outcome. But, instead of learning from Kerry's and it's own mistakes, it seems others would rather just lay the blame on him and exonerate themselves from any responsibility regarding the outcome.

I used to live in NC and SC so I realize how tough it is down there, but selling out our candidates and our leaders for votes is just not right and IMO and it looks like as a party have no integrity.

[MBS]

31. I totally agree.

And it's a sign not only of lack of integrity but also lack of confidence on the part of the Democratic party, in both its standard-bearers and its agenda. And insecurity and immaturty, too: the way we ache so for a White Knight to come Save Us (without our helping them out) every four years, then toss the Knights in a heap when they don't bring us the miracle we asked for. But I guess this is all the same thing, since integrity comes from knowing you are, and staying true to what matters to you: it's the ultimate sign of self-confidence and maturity. Ah, gee: why does this always bring me back to JK? :(

[karynnj]

32. Not to mention that running on the Democrtats having been right

but "before their time" (euphanism for "but the media covered for Bush") has to be a better strategy than running on the "Democrats should have won that easy election except we picked a bad candidate".

Both Al Gore and John Kerry were right on many many important issues, honoring them would seem to make sense.

[MBS]

33. oh, YES

I hadn't even thought of it that way before: it's bad strategy, not just bad manners. Thanks for the insight. (BTW, the word is "euphemism" : )).

[karynnj]

36. I knew it looked wrong and should have spell checked

Spelling was NEVER my strength. :)

[wisteria]

34. Absolutely. yet, the party allows them to be ridiculed and reduced to

almost unimportance in the media. The party plays right along instead of applauding our visionaries and leaders.

[rockymountaindem]

35. I'm not saying that at all

If someone called me asking for money the as described in the OP they wouldn't get a cent. But the notion that people should stop looking for "electability", I think, is a bad one and is asking too much of Democrats who are exasperated with the drumbeat of Republican victories in red areas.

[wisteria]

37. Elect ability is all in how they are presented by the press and how they are supported by the party.

IMO. There are exceptions, but any Dem with qualifications like Kerry and Gore had should have been electable. I can't speak to much on the Gore campaign, but the Kerry campaign should have had much more support than what it did and the negative press should have been countered. It appeared that too many Dem's were more concerned with their own chances in 2008 to really fight for JK- that is the way I see it and on of the reasons I have issues with Clinton and Richardson.

[MonteLukast]

26. "There Is No Alternative" (tm)... arrrgh.

To many Democrats don't care about the characteristics that should matter in a candidate... they only care about winning.

You see this beggars-can't-be-choosers mindset all the time... in politics, in workplaces, in families, in dating.

"The Small-Mart Revolution", one of the most uplifting and politically therapeutic books I've ever had the privilege to read, calls it "There Is No Alternative" thinking... and how it provides a short, quick boost of profit in the short run, but ultimately drags down profit in the long run.

You see it in newspapers' vicious circle of more "entertainment", more sound bites, more slick marketing and money spent on marketing, and lower and lower readership which leads them, of course, to do even more dumbing down. You see it in the recording industry's love of pop tartlets who are destined to end up either in rehab like Britney, or on the "Where Are They Now?" columns.
You even see it in raising dairy cattle with rBGH: the cows produce whopping quantities of milk for a season or two, then prematurely peter out and have to be put out to pasture.

What all these have in common, is that the corporations/organizations doing this all say the same thing: "I HAVE to, to stay profitable. There Is No Alternative™".

And you get the strong impression that not only doesn't that stuff not work, it's actually sending these organizations into the toilet faster. It almost makes you want to feel sorry for these corporations... locked in a downward spiral of their own choosing, with no room to negotiate and no way out.
Almost.

"Beggars can't be choosers" thinking gets you nowhere in the end. It doesn't get you anything but desperation and playing on the defensive. It certainly won't get you good government.

Besides, wouldn't you rather be Elton John than Britney Spears? Have a steady upward progression, and a hit every year for, what, 30 years in a row?

[wisteria]

30. Good points and that sounds like a very interesting book. n/t