"Electable" John Kerry

[Brian_Expat]

Now that we have our "electable" Democrat, why are we so worried? John Kerry was, according to conventional wisdom, electable, unlike big scary nutty Howard Dean and his ultra-liberal, crazed, 100% homosexual supporters. Heck, the WORST thing for the Kerry campaign would be for Howard Dean the Angry Democrat and his crazed lunatic supporters to come in and ruin the Kerry campaign now, right?

Well, at least that was the conventional wisdom before Dean dropped out. Now that Dean is out of the race (and therefore DU can lift its special "rules" for the GD:2004 thread), why should things change? Kerry beat Dean with the electability meme, surely he can beat Bush with the same meme.

Unless, of course, that original Kerry campaign meme was untrue. . .

[molly]

1. LOL!

[Cheswick2.0]

2. One of the really great things about being a Dean supporter

I found out I am not in my 40s after all. We are all 20 something doncha know.

[SaddenedDem]

5. Yep, isn't it great?

We get to go back 20 years and correct all those voting mistakes we made! Whoooooo hooooo!

[Loonman]

3. Dean was a joke

That people got before it was too late.

Nader is a world-class asshead and ego-maniac.

[WI_DEM]

7. yes a joke

who took on the war, took on Bush when many institutional Democrats were afraid to. Energized young people in this country and brought some new people into the party.

[DebJ]

32. Kerry and edwards have taken his message....so what was the joke?

The joke is that 'personalities' matter, not issues. The joke is that 'electable' in the US has nothing in common with 'electable' overseas, where people are actually involved in politics and informed. Isn't it amazing that so many Europeans know who the Democratic Primary candidates are, and your next door neighbor likely does not?
Have you watched the Brits in Parliament on CSPAN? Dean would fit right in. Passionate and informed. Unlike our movie star double talkers. Brits dollar/economy is better than ours, too. Maybe they know something we as a people don't. Like hey, politics matters. Obviously I am not referring to DU'ers, but we are a very small minority in this country.

[Stuckinthebush]

35. A joke that gave the candidates some spine

Thank god for that joke Howard Dean!

[GodHelpUsAll2]

39. So much of a joke

that Kerry and Edwards started using all of his issues in their stump. Whoops... Wait a minute, that would make them jokes too.

[SaddenedDem]

4. Woot! And there you have it!

Both Johns have to create a whole new game plan now.

The DLC/DNC played their games and now they have a problem.

Neither John is electable for the liberal base and Ralph Nader just gave liberals an alternative to being told to shut the hell up and sit the hell down.

Oooops!

[Brian_Expat]

8. Exactly!

And the sad part is, they'll attack all the liberal voters as short-sighted Republican-loving asshats, and continue to express perplexed shock when those people don't vote for their conservative nominee. Then, after the election, they'll blame it all on Nader (and maybe Dean).

For someone who they decry as being out of touch and minor, they sure give Nader absolute power, don't they?

Republicans certainly don't treat their supporters as poorly as the Kerry campaign treats Democrats to the left of Jack Kemp. . .

[dkf]

11. I wouldn't call Kerry a conservative nominee. How about a

corporate owned nominee?

That sounds more like it to me.

[emulatorloo]

25. You can call him what you like, but read this thread

There is a problem here at DU of taking somebody's campaign rhetoric and slogans a little too much at face value. I don't believe the generator of this rhetoric takes this stuff as seriously as some at DU, at least not if his recent actions mean anything.

Here is an extrememly simple thread to ponder as you compare JK and GWB to see how much the same they are:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=373525

[WI_DEM]

6. I was wondering the same thing

The media has proclaimed Kerry "electable" what more does he need than their blessing? Yet I see topic after topic on GD-04 regarding Nader hysteria!! It doesn't matter that Nader is in the race because John Kerry is electable--that is the only thing that matters, remember?

[Brian_Expat]

9. It's sort of sad, really

When I see all the anti-Nader posts, I think "reactionary." It's a reactionary move by the right wing of the Democrats to a threat -- a threat to their notion that Democrats are "trapped" in the party and have nowhere else to go.

I'm not a Nader supporter (I think he's a moron), but to attack Americans for exercising their democratic right to run for office and vote exposes the core elitism of the Kerry campaign. As far as he is concerned, Kerry has a RIGHT to be the nominee and a RIGHT to represent the entire left half of the spectrum -- despite having positions on war, civil rights, etc. that come from the right half of the spectrum.

[sadiesworld]

10. Yes, by all means, four more years of Bushco.

I wake up to Zell Miller on IMUS and this. Any Democrats around????

[Brian_Expat]

12. Four more years of BushCo

Like PATRIOT Act? Which Kerry voted for?

Or Attorney General Ashcroft? Who Kerry voted for?

Perhaps No Child Left Behind? Which Kerry voted for?

Perhaps you're referring to the Bush tax cuts? Which Kerry voted for?

Maybe the war in Iraq. . . which Kerry voted for?

Perhaps the anti-gay MA state constitutional amendment. . . which Kerry is thinking about supporting?

Seems like a lot of BushCo is also KerryCo. At least if you look at the record. . .

[sadiesworld]

16. You're right. There's no difference...

Kerry will stock his administration with a bunch of neo-cons, religious zealots, and tax cut/destroy -the -federal -government nutjobs.

[Brian_Expat]

41. The problem is. . .

. . . you're willing to settle for less. I'm not.

I never thought I'd be expected to support a pro-war Democrat who cuts taxes for the rich, supports anti-gay laws, etc. and be told there's a big difference between him and the Republican.

[Eloriel]

62. and probably institute a draft -- he's already promised that

he'll increase troop strength by 40,000 within his first 100 days.

Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.

[bornskeptic]

59. Fact check.

I have no interest in arguing again over the other points, but the claims that Kerry voted to confirm Ashcroft and that he voted for the tax cuts are blatantly false. It's not that difficult to look up votes on the Senate website.

[dkf]

13. The problem is that the DNC/DLC is using ABB to shove

an unappetizing candidate down our throats.

They say we have no choice that we must fall in line as they command.

[Brian_Expat]

14. Meanwhile, the difference between Bush and Kerry

is infinitesimal if you look at Kerry's record of votes in the Bush administration.

[sadiesworld]

20. I'm not DNC/DLC. I'm ABB.

[CWebster]

15. Ha!

I love it!

[Loonman]

17. Cutting off the nose to spite the face

Yeah, we all know you hate "the establisment" and the DNC/DLC, but is handing another election to Dubya the way to show your anger?

[Brian_Expat]

42. Who handed the election to whom?

I supported a candidate capable of winning without the DLC's support. The DLC is presenting a candidate who hates me and my kind, and cannot win without my support.

Doesn't seem very smart to me. . .

[union_maid]

18. This is the new meme, huh?

The Nader voters are gearing up for this year's "Don't blame me" defense. Don't even bother. This is not 2000 when we didn't understand that Nader was the enemy for a long time into it. We know who he really is now and it's going to be different this time. Gloves are off from the start. In fact, they never went back on.

[arwalden]

19. Oh, Good Grief! (Here We Go Again)

NOTE: If the following message sounds familiar to you, it's because I've repeated it many times. Thank goodness for cut-n-paste.

---

When a candidate is deemed to be "electable", it means the following: out of ALL the candidates vying for the nomination of the Democratic party, candidate X is the most likely to get the most amount of votes from the middle and from moderate-Republicans.

Being considered electable means that the candidate is the most COMPETITIVE of the available candidates and has the broadest appeal. It does NOT guarantee that close elections will be any less close... NOR does it guarantee a win.

The assertion that "third parties don't mean shit" if a candidate has been characterized as being "electable" is sheer lunacy. I have seen many provocateurs dangle statements like this as some sort of justification for 3rd party voting.

However... what the lunatic fringe cannot understand (or perhaps they understand it, yet choose to ignore) is the fact that this election will be a close one. The country is split. Every vote will count.

We have realistic need to maximize the number of votes the Democratic nominee gets... and our concern about actions that will ultimately benefit the criminal Bush* have noting to do with how "electable" the Democratic nominee is deemed to be.

Our concerns about ALL factors and elements contributing to the ultimate outcome of this election do not invalidate the "electable" laurel that any candidate has received.

The people who throw out idiotic and uninformed statements such as the ones we've seen over the past couple of days are engaging in this type of juvenile "neener-neener" nonsense for the sheer joy of taunting and provoking.

These wild-eyed accusations from the lunatic fringe that question our wisdom or resolve HAVE NO BASIS IN FACT. None of them are based on reality.

Ultimately, we CAN SEE quite clearly who the most electable candidate is... the votes tell the story. Unfortunately, there is little to nothing that I or anyone can do for these disgruntled people. The misery they create is their own.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

21. We....need to maximize the number of votes the Democratic nomi

Perhaps you would be wise to remember that as you cut and paste memes like:

"..what the lunatic fringe cannot understand.."

"..people who throw out idiotic and uninformed statements.."

"These wild-eyed accusations from the lunatic fringe.."

"The misery they create is their own."

Who wudda thunk it, huh?

[arwalden]

26. These people are beyond "salvation"...

... they belong to Satan now.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

27. Well, GOOD!

So that means you can stop your crazy name calling and demonization, right?

You're just wasting your time anyway......

[arwalden]

28. This Is Not About ME, SaddenedDem

This is about what's best for the country and about removing the criminal Bush* from office.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

29. Hey, that's my goal too.

But, when you call me names, demonize me, and bully me to support YOUR candidate, and YOUR candidate alone, I don't come to the conclusion that we are on the same side.

Who wudda thunk it?

And, frankly, it is YOU who makes it VERY personal with your demonization.

[arwalden]

30. And You Choose To Remove Bush... How?

Perhaps I've misjudged you... will you be voting for the Democratic nominee in November? You haven't said specifically one way or the other (in any message of yours that I've seen.)

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

33. I'll be voting for Howard Dean

Even if I have to write his name in for the GE.

[arwalden]

36. But You Do Understand That Dean Has No Chance Of Winning, Yes?

Dean will not be the nominee. A write-in ballot for Dean will not get him the presidency.

And you do understand that no matter how much you fantasize that it were true... there are only TWO MEN who have a chance at being elected president. Bush and the Dem nominee are those two... none others stand a chance.

This is NOT rocket-science... It's very straightforward.

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

40. The yellow is annoying

So much so, I didn't even read your post.

The point is simple - I don't need to WIN just for the sake of WINNING. When the candidate doesn't support my beliefs, he won't get my vote.

That's simple. I think it's called an exercise of democracy. I have the right to vote for the candidate who speaks for me, who addresses my concerns and supports my beliefs.

edit:
spelling

[arwalden]

47. Here You Go... Non-highlighted, non-bold, non-italics... Just For You.

But You Do Understand That Dean Has No Chance Of Winning, Yes?

Dean will not be the nominee. A write-in ballot for Dean will not get him the presidency.

And you do understand that no matter how much you fantasize that it were true... there are only TWO MEN who have a chance at being elected president. Bush and the Dem nominee are those two... none others stand a chance.

This is NOT rocket-science... It's very straightforward.

In our system, even though multiple candidate may appear on the ballot.. ONLY TWO candidates have any actual chance of winning.

What subtracts from the weight of votes behind one increases the weight of votes behind the other. All political strategists understand this, and thus all campaigns involve two prongs, one aimed at raising turn-out among one's supporters, and one aimed at depressing turn-out among supporters of one's opponent. It does not matter which proves most effective: what is aimed at is the maximum favorable differential between the number of votes cast for one's candidate, and for the opposing candidate.

The course advocated here by some, to withhold their votes from the nominee of the Democratic Party, in our electoral system, WILL HAVE THE EFFECT of increasing the weight of votes behind the Republican candidate, and could lead to that candidate having more votes than the Democratic candidate. Some people have difficulty in understanding or accepting this simple fact, but that does not make it any less of a fact.

As the Republican Party today represents the worst elements in our government. For anyone to act in the manner suggested is to act in support of the worst elements of reaction in our government. It is, for all practical purposes, to sign on to the enemy's attempt to suppress turn-out favorable to the Democratic nominee.

Such effective co-operation with the worst elements in our government is a damned odd way to demonstrate the zeal of one's attachment to left and progressive principles.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

49. And the reply is the same

I don't need to WIN just for the sake of WINNING. When the candidate doesn't support my beliefs, he won't get my vote.

That's simple. I think it's called an exercise of democracy. I have the right to vote for the candidate who speaks for me, who addresses my concerns and supports my beliefs.

With the addition:
If the DLC/DNC can't support a candidate who addresses my basic beliefs, they have no right to expect me to cast my vote for their candidate.

As Ralph Nader just said "argue on the merits, not on the money."

[arwalden]

51. That's One Of The Most Selfish Messages I've Ever Read.

Others who take that approach are being idealistic and naive. No good can come of it. They assume a position of weakness, and one that the enemy desires them to take. I find it to be both odd and suspicious for anyone to act in a way that directly benefits the criminal Bush.

Those who gleefully support Bush* are traitorous and despicable... beneath contempt.

-- Allen

[SaddenedDem]

54. Let's see if I have this right

I should be "unselfish" and vote for the guy YOU support because YOU think he's "good for the country" even though I disagree.

Is that how you describe "unselfish?"

Sorry, but that's my definition of delusional.

[arwalden]

64. Kerry Or Bush Will Be Our Next President

Any vote (or non-vote) that does not directly benefit Kerry, benefits Bush. It's as simple as that.

Although many people may run for president, and several names appear on the ballot... there are only TWO contenders. This is a fact.

What subtracts from one, adds to the other. Third party voters (and write-in voters such as yourself) will be benefiting the criminal Bush*.

Those are the facts as simply as I can put them (without yellow highlighter) :-)

It's your choice to either read them and take them to heart, or to ignore and discard them. I cannot force you to do anything. But I believe in your heart you know I'm right. And in your heart, you know that Kerry (although flawed) is a far better man than the criminal Bush* will ever be.

-- Allen

[janx]

57. Wow.

That's really yellow!

[dkf]

22. If Kerry wanted my vote he shouldn't have used a dirty tricks campaign.

Didn't he realize that he was deliberately alienating a whole bunch of people?

It's like asking me to vote for Nixon if I was a Republican. Ugh.

Remember, Nixon did a lot of good things too.

[emulatorloo]

24. Only innuendo, rumor support your claim of "Kerry Dirty Tricks"

If you read a little history, you will see that these alleged "dirty tricks of Kerry" follow almost to the letter Repug pot stirring dirty tricks, and slammed Dean on positions that are the EXACT same as Kerry's positions. So how does it make sense that Kerry is sliming dean for positions that are the same as his? REPUGs.

[dkf]

31. Alleged Dirty Tricks?

From GQ:

(Trippi's) cell phone rings. It's his pollster, Paul Maslin, who not only has bleak news out of Iowa—but bleak news out of New Hampshire. Trippi hangs up and stares out the window.

His phone rings again. "WHAT? Aw, **ck. I hate this business. This **cking sucks. Okay, thanks." He hangs up. "They're robocalling our ones," he moans. Their "ones" are the Iowans they've identified as absolutely, positively Dean voters (though it would turn out that they were absolutely, positively wrong on the number). He has just gotten a report from the field that Dean "ones" are getting bombarded with computer-generated phone calls telling them to make sure to caucus for Dean—then giving them the wrong address.

Who would do such a thing?

"Kerry," he snaps. "They're the only **shole snake campaign that would do it." He sighs. "Every frickin' day now, I'm reminded of why I got out of this in the first place."

--

Statement from State Director Karen Hicks
Posted by Timothy Jones
on Sun, 01/25/2004, 12:50 pm
Today, Karen Hicks, Dean For America's New Hampshire State Director, made the following statement:

"In recent days, our campaign has been hearing reports from New Hampshire voters that they are receiving:

phone calls early in the morning and late at night;
"robo calls" from soulless machines, not calls from considerate people;
calls claiming to originate from the Dean campaign, but do not;
and even harassing calls and bigoted messages.
Let me be very clear. The Dean campaign does not call New Hampshire homes before 8:30 am or after 8:30 pm. Our calls are made by respectful people, not droning machines. Our callers tell the truth.

We call on the other campaigns to make the same commitments.

---
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/26/22654/8026

Really stupid decision by the Dean campaign.
by ECH
Mon Jan 26th, 2004 at 02:26:54 GMT

My mother in NH got a call at 4AM in the morning from Dean for America telling her to vote for Dean. This pissed her off big time, I mean she was leaning Dean, but this alone might have pushed her to vote for someone else. Why the hell is the Dean campaign so stupid to be doing this?

=--

I recently learned that the Kerry campaign planted volunteers within the Dean organization in Iowa. They were so involved to be selected as precinct captains and then walked away the last week.

Posted by Darrell in Iowa at February 3, 2004 03:52 AM

---
In New Mexico:

I just got some information that the Kerry campaign has been robocalling Dean supporters at 4 and 5 AM posing as the Dean campaign.

Additionally, they are calling voters committed to Dean and directing them to the wrong voting locations for Tuesday's caucus.

The news media has been alerted, but whether they do anything with this is anyone's guess.

---

"MAJOR PROBLEM IN 36TH DISTRICT CAUCUS - SEATTLE, WA. AT OUR CAUCUS IT WAS Dean 3 or 4 to Kerry 1 and we were shocked when Dean didn't win. SHOCKED!

Here is what happened in my precinct. We won 4 delegates for DEAN because none of the other candidates were viable. In our precinct Dean had over 71% of the votes...

BUT

When I went to the 36th district HQ's to find out what the caucus numbers were for the whole district and I looked on the computer that AMY HAGPOLAIN was entering data on - I discovered she had completely reallocated the delegate allocation for my precinct! She had entered only 1 DELEGATE FOR DEAN (instead of 4) and gave 1 delegate to Clark (note - we did not have a single Clark supporter at our precinct caucus), 1 to Edwards, and 1 to Kerry in my precinct - The precinct that went 71.1% for DEAN with no other candidate being viable or receiving a delegate. That single error affected Dean's delegate count by 1% at the Congressional District level. Looking further into the available paperwork, I found another error in another precinct that was next to mine at the caucus. Of the twelve precincts I had time to look at, I found two errors that gave delegates to Kerry that were not his. I also noticed that the head count in our district said we had 13 people signed in, when it was actually 21!!! That effects the percentage for viability and the delegate allocation!

This woman (AMY) got unbelievably angry (defensive) with me as soon as I pointed out the mistake. She immediately started berating me and started a big argument. We had quite an unpleasant shouting match. Then, she and another 36th District Official named PETE started a viscious passive aggressive game, blaming me for keeping them there to late, calling me a jack-ass, on and on and on. Eventually, they won the battle with the District Chair to stop the recount that we had in progress. I made them all stay as long as I could and we started recounting precincts to make sure that the sign-in (head count) numbers were accurate. We found that the majority of the precinct head counts (from the sign-in sheets) were under counted by one or two people and in some cases by as much as 5 to 10 people!!! A couple of the precincts were over counted.

Then PETE (last name unknown) told the Chair that no copies of the minutes needed to be made and he would keep them at his house. He started loading the Caucus Minutes into his car to take to his house and AMY was taking out tons of paperwork (I don't know what, exactly) while we were discussing when to start the recount again... the few people on my side who were trying to get the re-count done gave up as Pete and Amy talked the Chair into counting tomorrow and then she let them take all the minutes and delegates papers out the door... UNBELIEVABLE… I could not have made this up if I had tried my best! Truth IS stranger than fiction.

THE DEMOCRATS ARE F&^%ED in this District and, quite possibly, this state! I was treated so horribly for finding that first mistake and only wanted to look for more problems. Based on my intial findings this woman named AMY was either (1) inept or lazy and didn't care that she entered the data wrong or (2) she was stealing delegates from DEAN. Either way, it was wrong. When she was asked to correct her error and to look for others - she lost it and BLEW UP! She and her cohort Pete had absolutely no interest in accuracy... they kept repeating to me - "The election is over... Kerry won". They weren't accountable to anyone! This is not about who won - at least not now, anyway. This is about all of the votes at the caucus getting accurately counted so that the delegate allocation is correct. People like AMY and PETE need to be banned from doing this kind political work. I felt like I was a REPUBLICAN 'hanging chad' Party in Florida - or at least what I imagined it to have been like...

I'M WRITING "DEAN" ON MY BALLOT IN 2004.

Oh, I reported all of this to the KING COUNTY DEMOCRATS CHAIR, GREG RODRIGUEZ and he told me that I was only one of many who reported the same types of problem in other area districts. KERRY PEOPLE ARE MOST LIKELY STEALING OUR DELEGATES. I GUESS KERRY LEARNED A LOT FROM BUSH IN FLORIDA!!

We also reported this to some local campaign contacts and the State Democratic Party - pretty much were told by the state party that there was nothing we could do until Monday... UGH! We need the delegates TODAY! This has been an unbelievably UGLY day.

Posted by danny at February 8, 2004 12:37 AM

--

These are only some of the many stories that I could refind. There are many more that were on the blog and elsewhere.

[emulatorloo]

37. Not proof re Kerry - this is repugs trying to split Dean and Kerry camps

you have here some mysterious information from a unnamed source, a feeling a blogger has, a supposition, the unsupported opinion of Joe Trippi (first reaction in anger - who I believe later said he thought this stuff was repugs)

It all has the fingerprints of repug dirty tricks, pot stirring, trying to split the Dean and Kerry camps. . .efforts by Republican operatives to get two campaigns fighting with each other over allegations of dirty-tricks.

Read some history and you will see that this hypothesis makes sense.

[dkf]

43. C'mon.

Darrell in Iowa is one of the most prolific posters there on DFA. He was a precinct captain and he detailed much of the campaign.

He is HIV positive, has a daughter and let a Dean staffer live in his house.

I know his entire name and his email address. He put together an event for the bloggers in Iowa.

You don't believe Joe Trippi, you don't believe Karen Hicks. You think that the RNC did this in Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico?

The guy in Seattle named names for goodness sakes.

You are in denial.

It would be better if you just embraced Kerry's dirty tricks and said that at least he and Bush are a match for each other.

[emulatorloo]

50. Wonderful People, but jumping to conclusions w/o facts or history

All of these people are wonderful, Darrell sound like a great guy. I love Joe Trippi, but he was speaking in anger, I remember reading on DU that he later said that he thought this stuff was coming from repugs, not other dems.

The people you site are jumping to conclusions w/o an understanding how Repugs work to stir up sh*t. These are classic repug tricks -- reread Franken's Lies and The Lying Liars Who Tell Them.

It is possible to have different theories about an event. The folks you site have theories and I have mine. Mine are based on the history of what repugs do to stir up sh*t. Everything you site is typical of a historical pattern.

This "Kerry did dirty tricks" theory is simple reaction w/o historical support. It just plays into what the repugs want -- splitting the Dean and Kerry camps.

[dkf]

53. Do you agree then that if Kerry was behind the dirty tricks that I

cited that he is unworthy to be President of the United States?

I bet you won't answer that question.

Whoever did these things shows a great contempt for Democracy. Giving someone the wrong polling place is an attempt to rob them of their right to vote. Just like telling poor hispanics in Florida that they need 2 ids to vote or leaving flyers saying that poor blacks can vote a day after the election.

BTW, Darrell in Iowa's comment about the precinct captains being moles for Kerry and dropping out right before the election was confirmed by a fellow DUer here who was also a precinct captain and encountered this situation with a different mole. He actually saw the said offender at a Kerry rally and said he would have beat him up except for the fact that he was really old. I forget the DUers name so I can't search for his comments.

But believe me, there is cold hard proof in Iowa and elsewhere.

[emulatorloo]

58. I would be upset if Kerry was behind the dirty tricks yes - but history

is not on the side of that being the case. A dumb analogy:

Bobby Repub has thrown rocks through my democratic windows 5 times and broken them.

Now my window has been broken again by a rock. A guy on the internet on a blog says Johnny Demo did it. A person heard from another person on DU that Johnny Demo did it. I heard another person saw she heard another person say he has cold hard evidence that Johnny Demo did this.

Now what am I to do? Bobby Repub has a history of pulling this kinda crap.

Bobby Repub also has a history of spreading stories blaming others for stuff - it is part of his MO to tell other people that he knows somebody that has "hard cold proof" that Johnny Demo did this. . .Then people who are mad at Johnny Demo are happy to believe Bobby Repub's rumors cuz they are mad!

So Bobby Repug gets away with breaking the window, and stirring up trouble

[Brian_Expat]

44. And my response. . .

The most electable position is anti-gay. Therefore, Democrats should compromise and support an anti-gay candidate as a way to win the election right?

If not, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at actively lobbying for a DINO who supported the Bush war in Iraq, Bush's idiotic tax cuts, and supports an anti-gay Massachusetts constitutional amendment.

[emulatorloo]

52. Brian - JK is not anti-gay

Please point us to these anti-gay quotes.

Please, though, no right-wing sources or willful misquoting.

Does he support gay marriage? No

Does he support civil unions? Yes

While that may not be the 110% that you want, it is hardly "anti-gay."

[Brian_Expat]

61. I didn't say Kerry was anti-gay (though he is homophobic).

I simply turned the logic around, to illustrate its silliness.

[emulatorloo]

63. Ok then - sorry I missed the subtlety

OTOH as we're both aware, homophobia is everywhere. Some people are raised better by wiser parents, or choose to work on themselves to minimize it and get past it. . .seems to me like JK is one of the good guys. . .can't say that about GWB.

[emulatorloo]

23. This is a dumb argument - the two issues are unrelated

"John Kerry Electable" and "Ralph Nader Spoiler" are two separate issues.

Nat'l polls have shown that Kerry polls better than other Dem candidates against Bush.

On the other hand, it is clear to anybody, including the White House, that this election is going to be really really close. The same polls show that.

Here are numbers from 2000 - this is what people, and not just this "strawman' of yours, "Kerry Supporters" are concerned about.

Iowa

Gore 49%
Bush 48%
Nader 2%

Ohio

Bush 50%
Gore 46%
Nader 3%

Wisconsin

Gore 48%
Bush 48%
Nader 4%

Oregon

Gore 47 %
Bush 47 %
Nader 5 %

Florida

Gore 49%
Bush 49%
Nader 2%

New Hampshire

Bush 48%
Gore 47%
Nader 4%

Minnoesota

Gore 48%
Bush 46%
Nader 5%

Nevada

Bush 49%
Gore 46%
Nader 2%

Arizona

Bush 51%
Gore 45%
Nader 3%

Missouri

Bush 51%
Gore 47%
Nader 2%

Colorado

Bush 51%
Gore 42%
Nader 5%

[Stuckinthebush]

34. John Kerry is electable

He will win the nomination and he will beat Bush. We will all work together to make sure this happens. There is too much hand wringing over Kerry. He will do fine and be a wonderful president.

[mmonk]

38. The bitterness

is palpable. I liked Dean and DK. I also liked Clark and supported him until he dropped out. I think at some point, the bitterness ought to subside (but I'm not calling for it so I won't get creamed with negative posts). I just want to say people can protest and work for change within the party. But re-electing bush is intolerable for me.

[Brian_Expat]

46. The bitterness. . .

. . . is a direct result of how Dean supporters were treated. Kerry and his supporters dished it out, and now feign shock (SHOCK!) when they get a little bit of it back.

It especially angers them that what they've been getting back is far more truthful than what they've put out there with regard to Dean.

[dkf]

48. Yes I am bitter, because the DNC has embraced a dirty dirty politician.

Do I just ignore this. Get over it?

Wasn't Bush's dirty trick in Florida the reason why we were so pissed?

Do we embrace dirty tricks when it comes from a Dem?

Do we have any standards?

Are we willing to accept anything in order to "win"?

Disgusting.

[Snivi Yllom]

45. I have to laugh

People are running around "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" and are more worried about Ralph nader than any of the other candidates or Bush.

[John_H]

55. Brian for DU resident logician!!!!!!!

[DrFunkenstein]

56. Does Electable Mean Will Win No Matter What?

Does the phrase "bite off your nose to spite your face" ring any bells?

PS - Does anyone alse here remember conventional wisdom calling Dean supporters "ultra-liberal, crazed, 100% homosexual?" It sounds like a great party, but I seem to have missed that news cycle.

[AP]

60. There isn't one definition of elecability, of which Dean is the antithesis

and Kerry the thesis.

It's always a matter of degree, and it's relative.

[julialnyc]

65. Who do you think shouold be in office?????? Make you position appointments

Submit to [e-mail]
President
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense*
Attorney General
EPA Head
Secretary of Health and Human Services
UN Ambassador
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Education
National Security Advisor
Secretary of Interior
Secretary of Treasury
Secretary of Homeland and Security
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Surgeon General
Secretary of Energy
DNC Chairman
Chairman of the FCC
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
Secretary of the Veteran Affairs
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Secretary of Agriculture
Chief of Staff of the White House
White House Press Secretary
*(note Wesley Clark can not serve in this office, as it has to be someone who has been a civilian for at least 10 years)
Here are mine:
President
John Kerry
Vice President
Wesley Clark/Bob Graham
Secretary of State
Bob Graham/Wesley Clark
Secretary of Defense*
Madeline Albright
Attorney General
John Edwards/Elliot Spitzer
EPA Head
Robert Kennedy Jr.
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Howard Dean
UN Ambassador
Joe Wilson
Secretary of Labor
Gephardt
Secretary of Commerce
George Soros
Secretary of Education
Christopher Dodd
National Security Advisor
Gary Hart
Secretary of Interior
George Nitchell
Secretary of Treasury
Robert Rubin
Secretary of Homeland and Security
Joe Biden
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Dennis Kucinich
Secretary of Transportation
Jean Carnahan
Surgeon General
Jim Doyle
Secretary of Energy
Jimmy Carter
DNC Chairman
Howard Dean/Jeanne Shaheen
Chairman of the FCC
Carol Mosely Braun
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
Lou Dobbs
Secretary of the Veteran Affairs
Max Cleland
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
William Grey
Secretary of Agriculture
Joseph Kernam
Chief of Staff of the White House
Charles Rangel
White House Press Secretary
Jamie Rubin

[mitchum]

66. Queer Eye For The Bitter Guy