Reply #15: well...were to begin... [View All]

[Nazgul35]

I said: because your response suggests that you hadn't....

You said: What exactly about my response suggests that? Just wondering.

Perhaps it was the fact that you attributed "hate and anger" themes to his campaign....while I know that this runs well with the media and other Dem candidates who were attempting to paint the candidates as "angry" or worse...unstable, it is nothing more than a talking point used to unfairly characterize this particular candidate...

I said: It was clear from the beginning that Dean's message was one of hope and a better tomorrow....yes there were elements of anger....who wouldn't be pissed off at what this administration has destroyed? If you are not angry, you haven't been paying attention!

You said: My personal anger at Bush has nothing to do with the reality that NOT EVERYONE is as angry as I am. Yet even the non-angry people in the center can be convinced to vote for the Democrat. I don't think that Dean was the man who could do that... not at this juncture... not considering the reality of the overall political mood and climate of the country as a whole.

Well done....while ignoring my first point and focusing on the second, you have chosen to attribute to me a point that I did not make. What I was saying...as is clear from the paragraph above was that: 1) People who were angry have a right to be and 2) that the Dean campaign, while acknowledging said anger offered a viable alternative future that was positive and uplifting

Now I will stop with the quotes because I think most people find that annoying and respond directly to your post from now on:

As to you being disingenuous about the Dean campaign having nothing to offer but hate and anger....perhaps your usage of attributing to the campaign a message of hate and anger while finishing your post with the line about "one trick theme," please feel free to explain who I am improperly reading this thread...

Webster's dictionary would be the obvious place to start with regards to figuring out the difference between "Loath" and "Hate." You usage of "hate" says something about your feelings towards the governor...just as using the word "loath" says something about skjpm....he was suing it to describe people's feelings about Bush, you were using yours to describe your assessment of the Democratic candidate Dean....I wouldn't necessarily call those equivalent in terms of what should be a "verbal tongue-lashing and admonition" of people. It is about direction...not force...

Fix your time line...you can not compare what the polls are reporting for Dean now with what they were reporting for Dean in early Jan....and the results in Iowa and NH....but than I get confused, what with everyone attacking Dean as a centrist/lefty, a republican plot/democratic nightmare....perhaps you could help clarify once and for all what the definitive argument is on Dean, since so many here have taken to such great lengths to make themselves scholars of the primary system....here we have 10,000 pundits instead of a few hundred...

"Where did his votes go..." when did he have them and when did he lose them? I am always curious that people here seem to believe that any vote, either in polling data or actual votes cast are somehow put into a bank, that nothing can change to influence those votes....

Support for Dean was soft, just as it is soft for Kerry and if Edwards should win will be soft for him....voters are not signing legal contracts with the candidates....but I am glad to see that you do acknowledge that Dean (as well as Clark, Kucinich and Sharpton) have done a good job of showing the other candidates what it will take to win in Nov.

here I have to quote you again...sorry dear readers:

I understand that a great many Dean supports are hypersensitive and tend to imagine insults where none exist. I do feel a bit of sympathy for the folks who blindly lash out at others for their "non-supportive" comments about Dean. For many ardent Dean supporters, even frank observations and comments are perceived as an insult. To these folks, anything less than glowing adoration of Dean is offensive.

I am not the enemy. There is no need for Dean supporters to treat me like one.

Reread your post. You claim the campaign was about hate and anger than attribute this as the only thing it had to offer. Please explain how this was a well-reasoned argument and how it was mis-interpreted as an insult? I'm afraid the disingenuous word must come back at this point...

Perhaps you would first tell me what "side" you are talking about and than we could proceed from there. For clarification, there was a power struggle within the Dem party between those seeking to continue their influence over the party and those seeking to take control. I would argue...as I have before in numerous posts, that those in control of the Dem and Rep. parties are monied interests whose whole purpose is to facilitate their economic well-being at the expense of the majority of the American public....

Perhaps I am wrong and you fight on the sides of the angels, but to critique the grass-roots movement inspired by the Dean camp as people attracted to hate and anger would suggest otherwise...

And to clear things up so you can say that you didn't say this:

If Dean's campaign gave a message of "hate and anger" and this was the only message offered (one trick theme), than those who supported this campaign in either time, money or votes were either:

1) Uninformed or
2) Attracted to the message...

which was it?