It sure seems like the Democratic Party Doesn't want Dean supporters

[ProudToBeLiberal]

From the way they are alienating us. Don't complain when you loose to George W. Bush and say "It was Dean's fault," Because in actuality it is the people in the democratic parties fault for alienating us so.

[Mile Hi]

1. Kerry can try to win without me

Dean isn't part of the special interest career politicians like Kerry.

[polpilot]

130. It's just mutual disrespect. We don't respect pro-war DLC guys and

they don't want a revolution.

Dean '04...

[HuckleB]

2. Speak for yourself.

This Dean supporter does not feel alienated by the party. Do I have disagreements with the party, you bet. Do I remain a part of the process, working toward mending those disagreements and changing things for the better. You bet.

This isn't about me. This is about me AND my fellow citizens AND the damage that four more years of Bush would do to us all AND realizing that we don't always get our way in a democracy.

End soapy rant.

[Uzybone]

4. excellent rebuttal

n/t

[HuckleB]

29. Well, I just said what I meant and meant what I said, er wrote.

Cheers!

[quaker bill]

109. To me the battle is more basic.

If the democrats become the party of "Progressive Internationalism" there will be no true alternative to republican governance available.

It is not so much that I don't get my way in a democracy. It is more that my way will not be represented by either party. Both parties will represent a very similar set of basic understandings of our country's role in the world, with a slightly different approach to implementation.

I think the dire predictions of the results of four more years of Bush* are rather overblown when John F. Kerry and "progressive internationalism" are presented as the alternative.

Kerry is not proposing to fix the deficit, he supports NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO, and to top it all off he believes in a "muscular foriegn policy" and that the ideas of the progressive left should be discarded in regard to international relations.

Bush is not proposing to fix the deficit, Bush supports NAFTA and CAFTA and WTO, Bush believes in a "muscular foriegn policy" and that the ideas of the progressive left should be discarded in regard to international relations.

Where's my motivation? To the extent I have any, it seems it needs to be focused on creating a democratic party that stands for something different.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. I'm sorry you feel that way...

but to say that the party is alienating you when your canidate is still on TV everyday yelling at the frontrunner and giving the RNC sound bites is hypocritical. Dean has done a lot to alienate the rest of the party from him.

[Straight Shooter]

46. I haven't heard any yelling from Dean

Quite the contrary. Go to rush limbaugh's site (first hold nose tightly).

You will see that Dean's reply to being egged on for a response to the kerry story is, "I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole."

rush thinks it's a dem out to get kerry, not the GOP. Must be someone pretty high up, I imagine. And according to the pundits, Dean is not high up.

[MoonRiver]

63. And we know Rush would be telling us the gospel truth.

:eyes:

[Kahuna]

77. Let me interpret "Rush-speak" for you.. Listen up...

I listen to Rush and Sean regulary. I have for years.

Rush and Sean are pushing the meme that Clark outed Kerry and that the Clintons put Clark up to it. Why? Because the Clintons don't want a Dem to win until 2008, when that Dem will be Hillary.

They are gloating about the Dems eating their own. We are imploding they say. It's all lies. They made up all the details of this socalled scandal for the following reasons:

1. To try to devert the negative AWOL drubbing bush has received all week. It's the old, "look over there" trick.

2. Fear of Kerry
3. Fear of Clark becoming Kerry's VP pick or any part of a new administration.
4. By blaming Clark for outing the "scandal" they feel they can discredit Clark and drive a wedge between Clark and Kerry.

People always ask, why listen to Rush or Sean? I listen so that I can explain their lies and deceptions to people like you.

[stickdog]

67. What a joke. Kerry defends Bush to attack Dean. Dean attacks Dems for

agreeing with Bush too much.

Which of these attacks hurts Dems more and why?

[LiberalTexan]

74. Still on TV everyday yelling??????

I haven't noticed the media has let us see or hear from Dean at ALL since the Iowa scream. I bet many think he already dropped out of the race with the amount of non-coverage he's getting.

Howard Dean spoke for those of us who feel alienated....like myself who heard John Kerry in a speech to the Florida Democratic Party in April 2002 promise that he would never send our sons and daughters into an unjust war. I shook his hand and told him "God Bless You". Now, I wash it like Lady MacBeth hoping the damn spot will come out.

Dean isn't alienating us. He's speaking for us. And, we are right to feel alienated by a party who just wants us to fall in line for someone who will most likely fail just because right now at this fleeting moment "we" think he's the only one to beat Bush.

And, this coming from someone who loves her party. I'm really not too happy about it now if you can't tell. We definitely need some CHANGES in this party and Dean was never afraid to say so!

[Kahuna]

78. Dean didn't speak for EVERYONE who felt alienated.

That's where you make a mistake to believe it's just about Dean and his supporters. What about the rest of us? Dean represents maybe 15%. What about the other 85% ? Why is your 15% more important or valid than the rest of us? I know Al Gore said so. But even Al must realize by know that he was wrong. He overestimated Dean's appeal.

All of the candidates spoke to their constituents who also felt alienated. Just because some of us don't bitch as loud about it doesn't mean we don't feel it too.

[Nazgul35]

82. 85%?

Are you suggesting that:

1) We had 100% turnout of Dems in every primary so far...

2) That 20% of those able to vote represent that 85? I'm confused...did we have Cali, NY, TX and FL primaries sometime when I wasn't looking?

3) That the majority of people voting for Kerry do so with any knowledge about the candidate's policies or personal history? I'd like to see that poll...

4) Dean represents maybe 15%. So I guess that 18% in Iowa and 25+% in NH were just crazy...what with having so much more info about the candidates than any of the others in the next 10 primaries...

Stop taking what one.....ONE Dean supporter says to slam all Dean supporters....in every thread I post to, I talk about the supporters of Clark, Dean and Kucinich who started out to try and rebuild the grass roots of this party that was destroyed by the special money interests of this Party who won this round...

But this is the first shot in a long war....we are organizing to take this Party back....

Understand that grass roots doesn't mean voting in primaries...these are second tier Party members....

Soft Money lured our party officials away like the sirens' call...we are going to make them deaf in the coming years.....

$45 million (in Dean's camp alone) showed us what we were capable of! Imagine 45 House Dems beholden to no special interest or party leaders....who does that leave for them to be a special interest for?

You ask: What about the rest of us?

It depends. Are you:

1) giving up and joining the monied interests of the party...go along little person and let us run things?

2) Doing nothing?

3) Interested in continuing the effort to take back our Party?

If you answered #3, than join us, as we will be discussing how to move forward at all levels of Party activity....

If you answered 1 or 2....wait for us.....we will be taking things over soon and we'll let you know what to do!

:evilgrin:

[Kahuna]

83. Yes. 85%. And I was being generous.

:evilgrin:

I won't dignify the rest of your post. You seem to want to discuss things that are irrelevant at this point. I don't see any reason to deal with far fetched hypotheticals. But you go ahead if you want to.

[Nazgul35]

85. really...

I don't see any reason to deal with far fetched hypotheticals.

Considering the sparkling defense offered for the 85% claim, why did you post to begin with?

Nice pithy response that completely ignores every single point I made....but hey.....you're right....

What do we have to worry about.....

I guess that would be answer number 2 for you.....

Don't bother to respond....I'm off to actually do something with my time....

cheers!

[He loved Big Brother]

104. I imagine 85% of the country also gets most of their "news" from TV

And base their decisions on such. Would you say they are more informed than the minority of Americans who learn about the candidates from various sources besides the TV?

The media picks our candidates for us, even though their coverage is nothing but infotainment or lies. Once they make up Democrats minds, the Democrats then turn on anyone who sees through the media's ruse and decides to support a different Democrat. Sorry some people are too independent to base their perception of a candidate on something besides how well he does in polls conducted by the same channels and reporters that trashed him, bashed him, and regurgitated a foul fake image to the public.

[The Magistrate]

5. You Read That From A Mirror, Sir

Some supporters of Gov. Dean do not want the Democratic Party, as its rank and file have overwhelmingly rejected that candidate by their votes thus far, and seem very likely to continue doing so. These persons, like Milton's fiend, would sooner reign in Hell than serve in Heaven....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Joe the Revelator]

7. You are by far

my favorite poster

[The Magistrate]

15. Thank You, Sir

Congratulations on your recent crossing of the 500th milestone: here's to five hundred more, Sir!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. "LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I love seeing that. And I know it's not a sig. 'cause I have mine shut off.
As for getting those Bush Bastards, John Kerry is the guy I want to go with.

[edzontar]

61. Dear friend, there are no less than two threads about PURGING us

One from one of our own special friends, another reporting a movement from within the DNC.

It is hard to feel like "unifying" under these ciorcumstances, no?

[The Magistrate]

62. It Is True There Are Such Sentiments, Sir

Feelings run high on both sides of this question, my friend. The story speaking of a movement in this direction in the Party's National Committee seems loosely sourced, and appears in a venue that has not struck me as too reliable in comment on Democratic Party matters for some years. The query begun by a member of this forum is purely private, and the bulk of replies do not indicate any such thing should be done now, though it may be adviseable in future.

It is worth looking into why feelings run so high on this side of the divide, for there is a history to this. The choice to cast a campaign as an insurgency against the Party, as Gov. Dean did, and which many of his supporters have enthusiastically adopted as a line, carries certain natural risks. Persons who have been active with the Democratic Party for many years, persons who have voted loyally for Democratic Party candidates all their voting lives, persons who have supported Democratic Party figures through thick and thin, may be relied on to react poorly to being told they are not "really" Democrats, and are not the "true" Democratic Party, as the insurgents' banners proclaim. Should the insurgency fail, as this one has clearly done, a backlash must be expected. It really is one of the risks of the trade, and persons unwilling to face up to it should carefully consider their association with an insurgent movement at its inception, for success is not guaranteed to insurgencies, any more than to any other side of a conflict. As in another matter where we have crossed words somewhat, there are consequences to being the loser in a fight.

Here on this forum, where old lags recognize some of those raising that cry of being the "real" Democrats as persons who have spent a good deal of time justifying votes for Nader and similar splinter activities, the thing is particularly galling. It becomes worse in the sort of circumsance that arose last night, where many such persons leapt on a rightist slur as ammunition in the intramural quarrel with great glee and energy. This raises some questions of judgement as well as of loyalty, and it is not an unfair conclusion to draw that some can be expected to do anything in their power to destroy a Democratic nominee they do not like in the fall elections.

Supporters of Gov. Dean in this matter raise the cry of turnabout is fair play, but that cry rings rather hollow with me. The circumstance surrounding the hue and cry is different. When Gov. Dean was assailed previously in his "front-runner" status, that status was a based on mere punditry, and on funds raised: not a single vote had been cast. Sen. Kerry's claim to being the front-runner, and the presumptive nominee of the Party today, is based on votes: he has won all but two primary contests, while Gov. Dean has not won one. An argument Gov. Dean's previous status was not genuine was reasonably sustainable, and in fact has been proved by events; an argument Sen. Kerry's status is not genuine is pure sophistry, for it is the result of quantifiable events. Further, there has never been a moment in this debate when the cries of the insurgency, that candidates who are not Gov. Dean are not "real" Democrats, have not been a prominent feature of this forum. It is not as if this is some new phenomenon, that Gov. Dean's supporters were formerly mild and judicious in the general run of their comments, and then were assaulted by viciousness they have no course but to respond to; many were in pitching hard from the very first, and have simply redoubled the effort as Gov. Dean's prospects have dwindled.

What is necessary is for the insurgents to strike their camp, and join in Popular Front against the worst elements of reaction, to secure the eviction of those reptiles from office. If this is done, there will be no drive for purge, for who would purge an ally? Alliance is based on a recognized mutuality of interests, and it would be hard to deny such a mutuality exists, in the need to evict the worst elements of reaction from national office. Even the most radical ought to recognize there is no hope of real progress towards any left agenda while the government is in the hands of the worst elements of reaction.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Forkboy]

64. Why do you always have to make sense?

You take all the fun out of my rebellion ;-)

[The Magistrate]

65. My Apologies, Sir

It pains me to cause you any distress, my friend. If it is any consolation, some damned hard knocks drove the tendency into a thick skull, many years ago....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTADS!"

[fishnfla]

105. What he said.

especially the Bush bastards part.

[arwalden]

107. I Think Magistrate Is A GEM Too!!

Allen

[Rich Hunt]

31. they rejected Clark, too

Remember Clark? The 'realist' candidate?

[The Magistrate]

58. Life Is Hard, Ma'am

You will have seen no complaint from me over that defeat, but only a resolve to persevere to the defeat of the real enemy....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[BL_Zebub]

45. Milton stole that line from me, Sir.

And as the one who said it, I can assure you that the situation is not at all the same. A much more apt comparison might be if I had succeeded in my attempted coup d'etat of Heaven, and then the Angels still loyal to God would have been forced out of the celestial kingdom rather than fight to restore Heaven to its proper state.

Not that I'm comparing Dean or Kucinich to God, nor the DLC corporatists to my most unholy self, mind you. But the dynamic is essentially the same. The Demoncratic party belongs to Demoncrats and they should not be expected to roll over because a group of corporatists, who are now apparently in lock step with the neocon PNAC agenda, want to transform this party into a clone of the GOP.

[Straight Shooter]

50. And I swear on a stack of unholy writ that BL Zebub is my favorite poster

Heaven for climate, hell for atmosphere.

[Rich Hunt]

51. me, too

sign me up for the mindless personality Cult of Satan.

:evilgrin:

[The Magistrate]

57. Perhaps, O Imp Beelzebub

We can discuss in future the climate and similar features of the region we are both so familiar with: my connections in that direction are excellent, and regularly refurbished.

You place yourself on the opposite side of your example, you may have noted, identifying the position you adopt in this particular quarrel with that of angels of light, a status you elsewhere foreswear. Note, too, that the coup d'etat is by definition a minority's work; otherwise the overthrow is the work of mass power in the streets, rather than pin-point attack in the seat of government. Thus your metaphor claims, were it to be pursued closely, that the forces that have defeated Gov. Dean are a minority, and are expelling the majority from the place. But it is only necessary to count the votes of rank and file members of the Party to demolish that idea: it is, in fact, a resounding majority that has rejected Gov. Dean, and a small minority that clings still to him above all else.

The observation of Milton seems apt to me most particularly along this line: many who claim they give their fullest allegiance to Gov. Dean claim they do so in the hope that, if anyone else is nominated, the reactionaries will win the upcoming election, and then the Party, and the people of the country, will move toward their view in consequence. The thought has been expressed more crudely by a political operative who once said: "This will wreck the party, but we will rule the wreckage." The result of such a victory by reactionaries will not be, of course, any great turn of the Party and the people toward the radical left, but rather the utter marginalization and destruction of the radical left, beyond even its current meager existance: it will be destroyed, root and branch, by the conditions it helped create through its own poor judgement. Depend upon it....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[stickdog]

70. Some folks have this bizarre aversion to the idea of serving in a

corporate imperialist heaven. But each to her own.

[quinnox]

6. Totally disagree, many former Dean people voted for Kerry

in the various primaries, according to several newspapers.

What I think is clear is the Democratic party voters don't want Howard Dean as the nominee.

[Kahuna]

79. Obviously. If Dean was polling 20% in Dec., and only 5%..

voted for him when it counted, it was his very own supporters who jumped ship. So, why are "we" being blamed?

And, how many times were we assured that Dean's support was so solid that nothing could stop him? :shrug:

[SadEagle]

129. Nonsense. Most of these were not Dean supporters.

They were frontrunner supporters. And still are

[helleborient]

8. It started with the now leading candidate - Quit crying in your teacups

He didn't want us then...using belligerent, belittling language...why change tactics now??

[jpgray]

12. For people who talk but do nothing, that is appropriate language

And of course, that is the context of the quote. People readily omit the "get out and fight" part of his speech, but we are well used to such tactics by now, no matter who we support. The tit for tat nonsense that forgets the Golden Rule is a big problem here.

Dean supporters are a great bunch, and are perfectly welcome in the Democratic Party.

[helleborient]

20. Funny, Kerry hasn't said we're a great bunch...

When will that come??

Right now I remember "Quit crying in your teacups."

Angry "Dean Dean Dean" backstage when microphones are around, and then questioning Howard Dean's character because he is too angry.

Etc.

[jpgray]

38. I can't speak for Kerry, but I can speak for myself. :-) (nt)

[HuckleB]

16. That's politics. And it's basically meaningless.

It's not like Dean hasn't made his share of cracks.

Sorry, but this Dean supporter isn't going down the road saying, "My way or the highway." I'm going to work together with the entire community of the party, with all its warts, so that we can regain the White House and improve our country and the conditions for livining within its borders.

(Jumps on soapbox.)

I find it unconscionable for any of us to walk away over some tit for tat politicking in the middle of a heated nomination race. Too much is at stake.

(Steps down from soapbox.)

Cheers!

[helleborient]

The doggedly determined march of Kucinich supporters in support of

Principle...and avoiding bandwagons...is making more and more sense to me everyday.

[HuckleB]

28. The nomination remains at stake.

Thus, that is the way to work for improvement.

But Kucinich will vote for the party's nominee, and he will ask his supporters to do the same. Dean will follow in similar fashion.

Principle is wonderful, and must be worked toward. But politics aren't pretty, and I find walking away from it and allowing others to have at it without the principled input that I believe in to be quite unprincipled. We can't always have our way, but we can do a lot more if we stick around and work together. That's what community is all about.

[helleborient]

35. And one way to work for improvement...

Is to adamantly oppose political bloodsport and sleaze.

[HuckleB]

42. Yes.

But if that means turning away every election, so that the greater of two evils always wins, then how does anything really improve?

[maxanne]

133. if at every election

our choice is the lesser of two evils, and we hold our noses (and compromise ourselves) to make it - why then, would we ever get different choices?

[mountainvue]

9. Sniff.

:cry:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. It is up to you to choose who to support, Bush or Kerry.

I hope you will join us.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

14. your premise is flawed

What if I wasn't voting in the first place when Dean wasn't running for the Democratic nomination? But because of Dean I got involved and was about to vote For Dean if won. But now I won't vote at all but probably write his name in. So essentially I'm not helping or hurting kerry at all. and I'm not helping bush too

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rich Hunt]

37. you mean it's over already??

I thought Edwards said it's not a 'coronation'.

[Monte Carlo]

11. Do you know what I learned after Nader in 2000?

This is not a negative, really, but I see certain parallels between Nader's campaign and Dean's now.

I voted for Nader in 2000, citing reasons similar to what you said. They haven't earned my vote, they haven't done enough to bring me in, the establishment will continue on, etc. Do you know what I realized? That its not just about me and my sentiments - it's about everyone. Politics is about unity as well as principles. Everyone else has their stands on the issues, and a single party cannot possibly accomidate them all. Its the greatest good for the greatest number that counts, and right now, that means getting rid of Bush in November.

[helleborient]

17. Then the candidate and his supporters have the duty to inspire us to vote

For him.

Al Gore failed that test with Nader supporters.

It's now a test for Kerry - and at least for some, it appears, he is failing at this point.

[HuckleB]

25. This isn't just about a particular candidate.

It's about the good of the country. Kennedy's famous quote fits quite well here, though I am too proud to spell it out. I'm sure you know which one I am talking about.

[HuckleB]

18. Yes, indeed.

[BurtWorm]

19. One big difference between Nader and Dean campaigns

One is centered around changing the party (as well as the nation) from within.

[Monte Carlo]

44. Absolutely, it's a big difference.

In a way, Dean offers inside the party what Nader offered as an alternative to the party - a very raw, populist, grassroots campaign, wanting to bring fundamental change.

In 2000, I swallowed up Nader and Green rhetoric and prop. whole. I was convinced of the "not a dime of diffence" line. I remember vividly talking about the party having to cater to me. I have since realized that in the grand scheme of things, if I make myself too hard to chase, then the party simply will not do it. I must be willing to give a little to get a little. I think that's what the poster of this thread needs to realize, as well.

[stickdog]

71. It's the opposite for me. I knew EXACTLY what was coming with Bush.

I fought tooth and nail for Gore.

I'll vote for Kerry, but I'm not lifting a finger. And I'm sure not going to argue with my more progressive and third party oriented friends about what's at stake because I just ain't sure myself anymore.


http://ntimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=450

One of the lessons that Greens, apathetics, disgruntled Democrats and others were supposed to be learning this season was the inherent value of working within the system. This virtue is so apparent, one was told, that it requires nothing more than logic. No benefits, no inducements, no reform, not even simple empathy was required on the part of those who now control the Democratic Party. It was enough to declare ex cathedra that if one disliked Bush, the only choice was whatever the Democratic Party wanted to offer.

Well, now the results are in. Not Ralph Nader, not Greens, not Jesse Jackson, but a multi-term, capable, moderate Democratic governor decided to work within the system. And what happened? He was ridiculed, dissed, lied about, and subjected to malicious spin by party insiders, the Washington establishment, and the obese media until eventually the voters believed them and swung to the approved safe, lightweight underachiever, John Kerry. Of course, for inside the system reformers such as Kucinich or Sharpton it was even worse. The NY Times doesn't even think they should be allowed in debates and the rest of the media regularly insulted, excoriated, and scolded them.

No one can look honestly at the experience of those who tried to work within the system this season and argue that the Democratic Party can be reformed in this manner. Along with its fellow-traveling troglodytes of the media there is nothing the party leadership wants less, or is more revolted by, than even talk of reform.

This is not a matter of whether Dean won or lost, but rather the vicious, inhospitable, insulting manner in which one of the most honest, decent, and interesting political figures of recent years was treated because he dared to run without permission of the party's elite. Now, as Craig Crawford put it, "The House of Lords of the Democratic Party are getting what they want."

[eyeswideopened]

114. DAMN GOOD POST

THANKS

[NightNurse]

135. I think you all should form your own Political Party

You have THE MAN + THE MONEY= Go for it!

[Tinoire]

141. Good post. Thanks for that article~ n/t

[Kahuna]

84. How can you change the party if the majority of the party..

doesn't support you? The voters are speaking. As it should be. I'm not happen with their decision either. But I accept it because it's democracy at work.

[Kahuna]

80. Thanks for this post. I hope all NBDers read this..

You said:
<<Do you know what I realized? That its not just about me and my sentiments - it's about everyone. Politics is about unity as well as principles.

That's what a lot of us have being saying forever. I remember Will Pitt posting about it "not being just about me," during the summer and all hell broke loose 'round here.

[maxanne]

131. yup

and as long as we tell ourselves that in every single election, we'll never have better choices.

[CWebster]

13. And then they complain when they don't line up. nt

[Sushi-Lover]

22. Some people on DU seem to be into alienating,

but I don't see that as extending to the Democratic Party. I really hate the way the primaries were set up to choose early. I think it is not very democratic and it is a miscalculation, but it has nothing to do with Dean. I don't like the idea of pushing so called unity before a nominee has been chosen, but I don't think that is about Dean in particular. Most Dean supporters want Bush out and even those who say now that they won't vote for an 'insider' ticket are probably just venting their understandable frustration with the way things have gone down. In fact I think that by the time of the GE almost all of us will be voting for the nominee. Especially because if Dean loses he will be actively supporting that nominee. If we lose this election it won't be because of disgruntled Dean supporters. It will be because we did not do enough to reach out to all voters and the Republicans manage to fire up their base and GOTV more then we do. That is my nightmare .. people stay home or go for groceries instead of voting.

[helleborient]

32. Exactly on target...

Political non-participation isn't always about apathy either.

It's often about avoiding something people see as permanently corrupt or sleazy...at least that's what a number of people I work with tell me.

[Larkspur]

23. I'm voting ABB in the GE but if you are in a "safe" state, you can

vote 3rd Party if you want. If you are in a "swing" state, vote ABB.

Let's get Bush out first and then work to reform the Dem Party.

However, while I will vote for Kerry in the GE, I will not donate my money or my time to his campaign, save what tasks my Dem Town Comm want to do for the GE. Kerry will have to liqidate all his assets with no hope of getting them back before I will donate to his GE campaign.

[CWebster]

26. No, I am PA

When you decide for us--we decide for you.

[goobergunch]

75. Yeah

It's probably not a good idea to have a swing state with 21 electoral votes vote in April.

[JVS]

99. Right on!

For the honor of Pennsylvania!

[NightNurse]

134. You're Just A Sweetheart

:loveya:

[GumboYaYa]

24. Whatever you do, don't let Du be your guide on this.

At my local party level, I am very much welcome. I have not had any negative repurcussions from supporting Dean and I live in the heart of Gephardt country. I'm going to a party with the Mayor of St. Louis next week. He is a giant Gep supporter, but could care less that I backed Dean in the primary. I expect that most of these arguments will be water under the bridge in a few months, but for a few die-hards. Plus, politicians by and large are whores. They will always want our money and votes.

[helleborient]

27. Good point...and I'm right in the thick of our picking a Dem senator

Here in Illinois.

Besides, changing the party from within - one of the main points of Howard Dean's campaign - starts at the local level. We already have a start with the organization built from Meetups.

John Kerry's campaign still hasn't made it here locally. I assume they will swoop in if the top level deems it necessary. It will engender shallow, party loyalty type support for Kerry at that point.

As Dean supporters, we know each other now and know we share similar pinciples and want to work together in the future. The people I have met here are great people.

[GumboYaYa]

49. We always have the "secret handshake."

Seriously, I think the answer is just as you said. Go local and make a difference. That was the conservatives strategy.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## 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.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

34. you mean like...anger against Bush? nt

[HuckleB]

39. Thanks for the worthless, sweeping generalizations.

:eyes:

[eyeswideopened]

115. The Truth Hurts doesn't it

[retyred]

117. the worthless, sweeping generalizations

Were in reply to the original posters worthless, sweeping generalizations, if you have a problem with that then address the original poster!

Thank You!



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[helleborient]

40. Wanted no part of the Democratic party from the start....

Yeah, that's why I've worked on two Clinton campaigns and frequent walking door to door at home for local Democrats.

Sounds like a love for media lies in this post.

[Sushi-Lover]

56. Good job with the alienating.

Dean's message is mostly positive in reality, as are those of all our candidates. What has happened here is Dean talking .. talking .. talking .. he says something negative .. talking. What you get out of the media mill is 'he said something negative'. Now he and his people should know that. They should try to take appropriate steps by limiting any negativity and trying to promote exposure of the positive, but at this point that may not be possible. The only reason you have this view of Dean is because you have been consuming all the negative press and not looking for anything positive.

Let me also point out that telling Dean supporters in the middle of the primary process to bow down to the 'obvious nominee' and like it doesn't endear people to to your way of thinking either. If Kerry gets the nomination, perhaps we can then speak of the message of the American voter.

[KFC]

36. Dean will endorse Kerry

And then you'll feel all better.

[Rich Hunt]

48. and why wait??

Why wait until then to punish Dean supporters? Hopefully by the coronation, they'll be quite adept with the big stick.

:eyes:

[mouse7]

41. It's not about parties. It's about ending reign of neo-cons in DC.

What I personally will or won't do regarding party politics is a decision to make after the 2004 election.

This course isn't about finding the best path to the future. This election is about making sure the US isn't led any further down the worst road we could take by the Neo-Cons.

[BL_Zebub]

54. Then I hope you aren't a Kerry supporter

...because the neocons are driving his campaign.

[HuskerDem]

94. NEOCONS are driving his campain........... really?

Are you prepared to back that up? Or was it just baseless crap you flung at us there?

Your not going to suggest a couple of little $2000 contributions out of many millions parlays into "driving" a campaign are you?

[Forkboy]

47. According to another thread floating around

the Dem Party doesn't want much of anyone....which is about what we'll get at this rate.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. This thread is a set up since I must be glowing in my comments about

said people.I would suggest, that if people vote in a manner other than the desire of the people who are th subject matter of your opening post, that either they disagree with them or they are not impressed by the manner in which the message is relayed.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BL_Zebub]

55. And how is a FAUX funded PPI (PNAC) advised empty suit nominee

going to stop the Totalitarian Theocracy of which you speak?

[info being]

59. For true Dems...its always someone else's fault

Remember...they lost in 2000 because of Nader. Haha.

[w4rma]

60. Remember that many influential Democrats have endorsed Dean

It isn't the Democratic Party that doesn't want Dean supporters. It is statists/corporatists in the Democratic Party who don't want us to interfere. They aren't the Democratic Party, but some of them are backing Kerry.

Watch Kerry's actions on this very closely. He may do what they want, but he also may decide not to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. HUHHHHHH?

In the past couple of days, I've seen MUCH more of Dean supporters slamming the Democratic party than the other way around.

I told you after Iowa that Dean was making a strong negative impression with my rellies, but instead of dealing with that, he seems to have made it worse by concentrating on attacking other candidates.

And by the way, here's another thing he did that was counterproductive: He made a campaign stop in Minnesota (caucuses in two weeks, folks), and it was open ONLY to people who paid $100 each.

Is that the way to broaden one's support?

None of the damage he has inflicted upon himself is the Democratic Party's fault.

[stickdog]

68. And what about the damage the Democratic Party has inflicted on him?

For example, why did the the head of the DNC decide to press the Bush AWOL issue so early if not to help Kerry's candidacy?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. I fail to see how that hurts Dean

Couldn't Dean use it too?

Sure, he wasn't in Vietnam, but since he's never played soldier in public, he's not vulnerable on that issue like Bushboy is.

The issue is not so much that Kerry was in Vietnam and Bushboy wasn't but that Bushboy is playing military hero when he couldn't even be bothered to show up for NG duty.

[stickdog]

72. Because it highlights Kerry's greatest strength as a candidate and

Dean's greatest weakness vis a vis Kerry.

Isn't that patently obvious?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095238/

The AWOL Mystery: Why are Democrats bringing up the Bush/National Guard/AWOL issue now?

Sure, the press is playing along and it's having an impact--but by November, when the Dems need it, it will seem like very old news. If you want to win the election, the time to start a media AWOL frenzy is in August or September, no? Yet commentators continue to look for the anti-Bush logic in the Democratic strategy. Tim Russert was just on Hardball saying the AWOL issue is a "warning shot" from the Kerry camp telling Bush he shouldn't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense.

Huh? Maybe I don't understand the Bonesman's Code in which Kerry communicates with Bush--and there have been other ominous Kerry camp warnings about putting "everything ... on the table", etc.--but is there any chance Bush won't accuse Kerry of being weak on defense? No. And how would Bush be dissuaded by a "warning" that Kerry might raise the AWOL issue when Kerry's already raising the AWOL issue--and by doing so is diminishing, not enhancing its November effectiveness? It doesn't make sense ...

That is, it doesn't make sense unless you view the AWOL issue as a primary election strategy, not a general election strategy. Its purpose is not to boost the Democrats (in November), but to boost Kerry (now). By getting the press talking about the chest-full-of-medals vs. slothful Guardsman issue, Kerry has helped convince Democratic primary voters that Bush is beatable--reinforcing the blindered Democratic focus on winning--and conferred on himself the Aura of Electability that is his only real selling point. Equally important, he's taking up valuable media time that might otherwise be spent scrutinizing him and inducing buyer's remorse--and which his rivals, especially Edwards, might otherwise use to get their messages out.

It's quite brilliant, really--until you realize that it sacrifices Democratic interests in the fall for Kerry's interests today.

[Johnyawl]

93. And here I thought it was Michael Moore...

...Peter Jennings & Wesley Clark that got that ball rolling. How foolish of me not to realize that they were working for Kerry.

And how come this issue only helped Kerry, and not Clark also? This should have played to Clark's strengths as much as Kerry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

118. Thanks for mentioning that, johnyawl

Yes, the AWOL issue could have benefited Clark as much as Kerry, only it didn't.

Not everything is a conspiracy against Howard Dean.

[HuskerDem]

101. Scraping away the layers of tinfoil on this issue

"For example, why did the the head of the DNC decide to press the Bush AWOL issue so early if not to help Kerry's candidacy? "

Well, it goes like this. In a campaign rally, Michael More said he couldn't wait for a debate between General Clark and George W. Bush, a DESERTER. All hell breaks loose. The press roasts Clark's NUTS for it. Spittle flies from the lips of Bob Novak. Tuckers bow tie pops right off his little pencil neck. They interview Terry McAuliffe and ask him to DENOUNCE this assertion. Ludicrous, traitorous, baseless and repugnant they say! How DARE the General not banish Michael Moore to the depths of hell for saying things like that about his commander in chief they say. Surely YOU, Terry McAuliffe as the head of the democratic party renounce Clark and Moore for these comments?

For some reason the same press that painted Clark as freakishly inept for not distancing himself from this issue also proclaimed Kerry the beneficiary of the same issue. Whatever. I don't blame Kerry. Water under the bridge. As long as SOMEBODY is out there talking about Bush dodging the draft, I'm happy.

I sure don't blame TM for defending Michael Moore. I'm glad he did it, even if I would have preferred a different outcome.

[Johnyawl]

119. Well said HucksterDem!

And what a great picture! I hope Karl Rove shat a couple of bricks when he saw that one!

[HuskerDem]

123. If we get a Kerry/Clark ticket, I fully expect to see some new boils

On w's face and Cheney to drop from the ticket.

[Johnyawl]

125. If we get a Kerry/Clark ticket...

...the republicans are going to need Jesus himself on the ticket to be competitive.

[eyeswideopened]

116. They damn sure didn't have his back when he was attacked

In fact that probably helped feed the frenzy

[MurikanDemocrat]

73. The Democratic Party does not revolve around Dean

much as some would like it to. The purpose of this election is to defeat Bush in the GE come November. Those with alternate agendas are bound to be disappointed.

[The Magistrate]

76. Well Said, Ma'am

[stickdog]

86. How does such an attitude toward ostensible allies help elect a

Democratic President?

Like the way Bush's internationalism helped make the Iraq War truly multilateral?

[MurikanDemocrat]

87. What attitude toward allies?

The purpose of the primary process is to select the best candidate to go up against the opponent in the GE. The purpose of the election is to WIN the election.

It's not, nor has it ever been, the place of the losing candidates to have any voice in or control of the platform, the policies, or the agenda of the nominee.

Again, the election does not specifically revolve around the individual candidates in the primary process. It revolves around the goal of electing the selected nominee.

What do you mean how does this help elect a Democratic President?

[stickdog]

122. One of my majors was history.

It's not, nor has it ever been, the place of the losing candidates to have any voice in or control of the platform, the policies, or the agenda of the nominee.

Bullshit.

[The Magistrate]

89. Allies, Mr. Dog?

Alliances are the product of mutual interests. Any person who is interested in evicting the criminals of the '00 Coup from office in November will find me an ally. Any person who places some competing interest higher than that is my enemy.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[stickdog]

121. Yes, sir.

I'm either for you or against you, sir. I understand your mindset quite clearly, sir.

[The Magistrate]

132. Well, Mr. Dog

If you state your intention to act in a way that will benefit the worst elements of reaction, what do you think the proper term for you would be?

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Kahuna]

81. I'm disappointed as hell that Clark won't be the prez...

But it was never about Clark or me. It's about unseating the usurper. Period. We can get fancy about our ideals once bush is gone. Until that happens it just a circle jerk. Let's put the horse before the cart.

[janx]

90. Some of us don't believe that Kerry can beat Bush.

It's not some Naderlike, idealistic goal we have in mind. We just don't think that Kerry can beat Bush.

[MurikanDemocrat]

91. And what makes your judgement better than the collective judgement

of the voters? Clearly, the vast majority of voters feel Kerry is the candidate best able to beat Bush.

Clearly, the vast majority of voters are rejecting Dean. He has not won a single primary. That's a pretty clear indication that he would not fare well in the general.

[janx]

95. I never made such a claim. The primary process is underway.

How about our letting it work? We don't yet know about the majority of the voters because the majority of voters have not yet voted.

[MurikanDemocrat]

97. But we are not operating in the dark

We DO know about the majority of the voters.

There are polls in every state that give us an indication of how voters are leaning. The results are the same as what we have seen so far.

[janx]

98. So why have elections?

(It's a rhetorical question.) Sorry, but our primaries are front loaded enough this time around as it is.

The primaries will continue. That's what democracy's all about, yes?

Good luck!

[MurikanDemocrat]

102. Of course. But now you are changing the subject.

[Guaranteed]

88. Yes it does. LOL nt

[HuskerDem]

92. I always felt like it was the other way around

You know Dean running around calling 1/3 of us republicans, 1/3 of us cockroaches and strategically dismissing the others as "not major" candidates it seems to me it's Dean that alienated the Democratic party.

He made the bed and now that it's lights out, he curses the darkness that he created.

[Comadreja]

96. Dean keeps going because of us, his supporters

I think Howard changed his tune on the WI primary because we, his power base, kept giving him money...he has almost $2 million for the WI campaign. He feels a sense of obligation to we who back him, and doesn't want to disappoint us. This is no ego trip; it's all about his supporters. When he senses we think it's time to step out of the ring, he will, and probably would have already if not for WE THE PEOPLE. The process will be poorer for it whenever he does.

[Kahuna]

106. Then his supporters are ego tripping. Clark's supporters..

cared more about him than our egos. So we let him exit gracefully.

Campaigning is grueling and often thankless unless you win. What's in it for you that you would encourage your candidate to continue to be diminished before the entire country?

My take on the 2 mil, Dean will use it to retire debt.

[Comadreja]

120. Anyone who takes on Bush will be "diminished" by the media

The toxic slime spitting (I just love Diablo) GOP attack dogs are going to savage whoever is left standing, but point is taken that I hate to see Dean subjected to it. As I've said before, once the political establishment machine decides you're out, even Jesus couldn't stay in without getting crucified. Why are we on an "ego trip"? When did this trip begin, and precisely when is it time to end it? We're all in this together, and politics is politics, but I'm not here to attack anyone or their candidate, unless they're Republican. I hoped that my fellow Dems will show the same respect.

[Spider Jerusalem]

100. Thus far, a majority of Democratic voters don't want Dean.

And YOU, sir, are singularly petulant in considering this "alienation", and one must say obviously, from your comments, less interested in Bush LOSING (which, for most Democrats, is the point of the upcoming election) than in Dean winning at least the party's nomination. This is an attitude strikingly reminiscent of that evinced by a foul-tempered child, who, having been bested in a contest with his peers, declares that he is collecting his toys and going home, rather than learning from the defeat and continuing to play the game with hope of eventual victory.

And would you REALLY rather see Bush elected to a second term than defeated by either Kerry or Edwards? If so, then one can only hope that the acrid pleasure of schadenfreude from seeing the Democrat who defeated Doctor Dean lose the general election comforts you over the next four years.

[quaker bill]

111. Spoken just like a Kerry supporter

This is not a game. There are too many wrongly dead people to ever call it such.

I have been playing the "game" for 32 years.

The hype about 4 more years of Bush is much overblown if Kerry is the alternative.

First, "Progressive Internationalism" is not all that different from PNAC. Its philosophical underpinnings and intended result are nearly identical.

Second, selection of Kerry means we will lose anyway.

[polpilot]

127. Petulant- One who doesn't support the pro-war DLC's candidate.

Get it?

Dean '04... The Anti-Iraqi War...Anti-DLC...Anti-Establishment candidate.

[paulk]

137. spoken just like an RNC talking point

"First, "Progressive Internationalism" is not all that different from PNAC. Its philosophical underpinnings and intended result are nearly identical."

I think this is absolutely the stupidist thing I have ever seen here on DU.

"The hype about 4 more years of Bush is much overblown if Kerry is the alternative."

Then vote for Bush. If you aren't already.

[notbush]

103. It seems to me

That Dean established himself as the front runner. Then the media told us "he couldn't win"
As a party, we said "Yea your right" we'll find somebody else.
I want the WH back as bad as anybody, but I'm afraid the party ran away from Dean so quickley, after the press deemed him unelectable,that we're voting for someone that the media hasn't vetted.
Fuck the media!!!!
Well...they helped make Dean, and then they distroyed him.
I hope that they are not doing the same with Kerry.

[kstewart33]

108. Why do Dean supporters expect to be welcomed?

When so many of them won't support the party's nominee if he's not Dean? If Dean supporters will support the nominee, then the party will welcome them. If they do not, the party's response is logical.

[quaker bill]

110. An even better question

Is why we would want to be welcomed. It baffles me. I would rather be rejected on a principled stand than welcomed as a compromise.

[eileen_d]

112. I would never blame a Dem loss in 2004 on Dean

unless Dean was the nominee. It's the nominee's responsibility to campaign against Bush and get elected - unless there is evidence of Republican dirty tricks (which would not be surprising in the least).

If you feel alienated by the Democratic Party, it is up to you do do something about it. You have many choices, including writing in Dean, voting third party, withholding your vote - I support your right to make any of them.

[eyeswideopened]

113. duh

[NV1962]

124. Report from Reno: Dean supporters *ARE* Democrats

I've posted several times about the great "family reunion" type caucus here.

There was no alienation; I'm positive that all of us left the caucus with this big, big internal boost that with such a strongly committed and energized party, Bush will be gone in November.

The more I think about it, the more I suspect that some of the infamous "candidate-baiting" on this forum has been a deliberate disenfranchisement operation.

For what it's worth, I still have the pics of the "Fab Four" in my sig - and with that I mean to signal that all four are very good Democrats, and would make great Presidents.

The Democratic party not only comprises many Dean supporters, the Democratic party needs the Dean supporters and their input, and the Democratic party will win the elections thanks to the contribution of Dean supporters.

Campaign on!

[John_H]

126. I Love Howard Dean Democrats!!!!

Because 99 percent of them will vote for the nominee. They just don't talk about it on Internet message boards.

[arewethereyet]

128. which democrats and how are they alienating you ?

you seem to be casting a pretty wide net and explaining little

[shivaji]

136. Dean was a breath of fresh air in the democratic party...and now we

have in Kerry a candidate who has contradicted himself
over and over. I heard Hannity saying the repug commercials
will show Kerry debating Kerry! I hope Kerry wins but there
will be no enthusisasm, joy or spark since I know nothing
will change with the repug congress calling shots.

[Alinsky]

138. Don't take it personally

That’s why I don't understand how Limbaugh gets away with ranting and raving about the liberal Democrats. Before the 2000 election I always voted the Democratic Party line, because they were somewhat more tolerant of liberalism then conservatives. I even voted for Clinton twice even though he was a Republican Democrat sellout like Kerry.

But in 2000 I traded my Gore vote in a swing state with a Nader voter because in New York my New York vote would not of counted because Gore won the NYC vote by 80% or more over Bush. And I think that liberalism is the answer to solve our social injustices so in 2000 by voting for Nader I was actually for once able to vote my conscience.

Dean actually is not even a liberal but a Democrat, and even his own Party hates him because he was tolerant of liberals.

Democrats and Republicans hate liberals.

Some 16,000 people traded votes in swing states in 2000. Here are the numbers.

http://votetrader.org/results/

Edit for content

[notbush]

139. I agree

Kerry was dead 1 month before Iowa. Then the media KILLED dean.
The average demo just started looking for somebody, anybody that might be able to beat BUSH.
Kerry hasn't been vetted by the national press, because he blew himself up just running in the primary.
I don't have a good feeling about our anointed candidate.

[notbush]

140. I agree

Kerry was dead 1 month before Iowa. Then the media KILLED dean.
The average demo just started looking for somebody, anybody that might be able to beat BUSH.
Kerry hasn't been vetted by the national press, because he blew himself up just running in the primary.
I don't have a good feeling about our anointed candidate.