Is it more important to defend Kerry or to find a better candidate?

[skjpm]

What if those of us who don't like Kerry are right? What if, as the polls show, he's not a winner? Is it more important to keep shoring up Kerry and thus lose in November, or to really take a serious look at our complaints and try to find someone who might win? Kerry is not important--winning the White House is. If we have to hurt Kerry's feelings to get there, I'm OK with that. But I'm tired of people who define being a Democrat as loyalty to Kerry. My loyalty is to winning the White House, and I don't think Kerry will get us there. I think I'm a better Democrat because I want to win, not just defend an obviously poor choice.

[onehandle]

1. Counter-productive.

Kerry is the candidate. Period.

[RandomKoolzip]

2. How would we go about dumping Kerry and looking for a new Dem nominee

this late in the game? Do a recall? Do you think you can drum up enough support for this effort by the convention?

I think the effort might be better channelled into buttonholing Kerry's advisors.

[dd123]

35. Wow! Can't believe I'm not the only one who is thinking this!

I was hoping Kerry would realize he doesn't have the decisive personality needed to be President and would drop out.

Fineman was right when he said that Kerry seems like he's running for Secretary of State but not President. Too much ambiguity in language.

People want decisive leadership because they want someone to follow. I think they'd be willing to take a decisive leader who is wrong over a dithering person who is not a leader, because how can you follow someone when you can't figure out where they stand? You can't! You'd be aimless too!

By dithering, I mean someone who still will not say whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. Saying that you don't like the WAY we got into Iraq, but not stating flat out if it was a good idea or not is plain old ducking the issue.

Of course, the optimum is a decisive leader who makes good decisions but we don't have that option here.

[LiberalFighter]

85. Shouldn't dump Kerry... it should be whoever is calling the shots for him

If Kerry is calling the shots on what and more importantly how then he needs to be consuled a bit more closely.

[freetobegay]

3. It's a little late to find a new candidate

The only way to win the White House this year is with Kerry.

Doesn't matter if he's a poor choice or not, it's what we have.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[onehandle]

9. That comment is over the line.

And he is nominated by the numbers. By the people.

[freetobegay]

12. Wanna make a bet on who will be the nominee?

I thought so.

[Doomsayer13]

83. a nazi insinuation

so you equate Kerry supporters to brownshirts? Why should anybody take you seriously now?

[Skinner]

4. I'm sorry to tell you this...

but there isn't going to be another candidate. Like it or not, Kerry is the guy. The choice you are asking about does not exist.

[KoKo]

19. Ah for the good old days of the "Smoke Filled Rooms" where a challenger

could be pushed forward at the Convention, and a vote could be taken.

Now the Conventions are just "rubber stamps." In the old days a candidate like Kucinich (who is still in the race) could work the back rooms and get support to get present a challenge. He would need to have more delegates than Kucinich and Dean will have, though. Given the "front loaded" Primary that was impossible.

Kerry is the best we could do. A war hero, with alot of political experience. Maybe in the "old days" the results would have been the same. His VP pick is the key to getting some excitement here, though.

On his own Kerry keeps coming off too "low key." VP pick could add some spice.

[bobbieinok]

77. 'smoke filled rooms' were filled by insiders - very little people input

states had caucuses and mostly just the insiders went and made all the decisions

primaries were supposed to give power to the people

now I think primaries give power to the media and $$$$

after 20+ years in IA and now 15 in OK, I MUCH prefer caucuses

[WilliamPitt]

34. We're doomed. I'm voting Bush.

[DinahMoeHum]

56. Bwahahahahahaa!!!!

n/t

:evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

69. I've been waiting to alert on you, you fiend...

Tombstoned!

:hi:

[WilliamPitt]

75. Mwah hah hah

Your mother smells of eldeberries.

There. Alert me. :)

[diamondsoul]

82. ROTFLMAO

What's pitiful was I actually had to look twice at that!

[Claire Beth]

37. you're right!... and a vote for anyone else .....

would be the SAME as a vote for Bush. Our next President will be either Kerry or Bush. I'm doing EVERYTHING I can to assure Kerry wins even though he wasn't my first choice.

[JI7]

5. hahahahhah

[vi5]

6. Any candidate would be getting this same amount of smears..

If you don't believe that then you clearly haven't been paying attention. Every single guy who was running for the nomination would be getting smeared right now for any number of things. If it was Clark it would be Bosnia or the Clinton connection....Dean the personality issues, the temper, the ill-timed statements or anti-war stance....Edwards the trial lawyer thing.

All of this is exasperated by the fact that bush is getting hit by a lot of different things lately that aren't good for him so they are coming out even stronger. I think Kerry is doing well to lay low until a lull and then come out swinging. He is raising a lot of money and not spending it foolishly. Considering bush has outspent him by a wide margin so far, i think it says something that the polls are all still a virtual dead heat.

You dont' have to love Kerry (I dont' even necessarily). But he is our candidate and he will be our candidate so complaining about "what ifs" are counter-productive.

[blondeatlast]

70. How very true--we tend to forget that.

I'm a DK turned JKer, but I'm uncomfortable with DK's reversal on abortion rights, and if he were the candidate, I'd be ripping him a new one for it.

[LiberalFighter]

86. Anyone remember how much Clinton was smeared in 92? 96?

[ramapo]

7. Game Over. Kerry's the best and only shot.

Reality check here. Kerry is the nominee. End of story.

Kerry is the ONLY person in the United States who has a chance to defeat George W. Bush in November.

Take it or leave it.

If you like what's gone on the past four years just wait, it'll only get much worse with the second coming of Bush II. Or you can suck it up and vote for Kerry. Sending him a few bucks wouldn't hurt either.

[skjpm]

10. So, suck it up, and lose, you say?

So my desire to actually win the White House is trumped by some stupid loyalty test? We never make mistakes, we never change our mind? Sounds like Kerry is the new Iraq!

[freetobegay]

14. oy vey

eom

[ramapo]

68. My thought exactly

What else can you say?

[blondeatlast]

71. Just what is the alternative? The Greens? Nader?

How is this miracle candidate going to happen?

For most of us, it's not about loyalty, it's about making sure the bush is planted back in Crawford. Kerry was low on my short list, but beats the hell out of the pretender to the oval office.

You don't REALLY expect a brokered convention, do you?

He's polling anywhere from 45-55% against an incumbent president in WARTIME, and you are saying you don't think he can beat the shrub? And it's only APRIL?

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

76. Whose your choice?

Wait, wait--don't tell me!

It's right on the tip of my tongue--um, that guy, from over there...

[blm]

11. Get rid of the most liberal candidate of our lifetime.

Get rid of one of the smartest candidates of our lifetime.

He doesn't use hot rhetoric that attracts internet message boards.

He's not entertaining enough.

That's the ticket.

[KoKo]

20. The most liberal candidate of whose lifetime? There are lots of different

"lifetimes" represented on DU. I'm sorry it's just your lifetime you are referring to. :-(

[blm]

24. Name a dem nominee in modern history with a more liberal record.

.

[AntiCoup2K4]

28. Name a dem "nominee" who spent the last three years aiding and abetting...

...his opponent's agenda.

[blm]

31. That characterization is not accurate.

If YOUR candidate of choice would have been in Congress during his career, what type of liberal rating would he have racked up?

Kerry voted against conservative judges. Some DLC centrist governors APPOINTED them.

Kerry voted to protect the environment. Some DLC governors protected big business to the dismay of environmentalists.

And, if Biden-Lugar had passed, Bush would STILL have gone to Iraq. Would that make Dean prowar the way Bush carried it out? No. Just as IWR doesn't make Dems prowar the way Bush implemented it.

[jonnyblitz]

29. If he is the "most liberal candidate of our lifetime"

His stance on Iraq and his support of that asshole Sharon are certainly out of character then..

[still_one]

13. It is thoughts like that why bush will win

Nader and the Democrats will insure a bush victory

I'll bet money on it!

[Old and In the Way]

15. More important to defend Kerry.

He's a great candidate. It matters not who we run for President, the RW would be smearing any of our choices as unfit. Lucky for us, we've chosen a great progressive Democrat that will be the next POTUS.

Grow a spine and stop whining.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. Do as you will. As for the rest of us . . .

getting our energy and money behind Kerry gives us the best chance of winning back the WH. And THAT is the only thing that matters.

BTW, you don't have to defend Kerry -- go on the attack against * when a Bushie tries to tear Kerry down. Hit'em with jobs lost, treasonous war, environmental destruction, AWOL, etc. Ignore their negative comment and slam the Dauphin. Don't admit that the Bushie might have a valid point. That's how they win, and the important thing is to win, not to be nice.

Visualize Kerry in the Oval Office!

[Monte Carlo]

17. Teamwork makes the dream work.

Someone wise said to me once...

I don't want to say this as to make you fall in line, I just want to say that it's better that we all fall in line because it's the prudent thing to do. Bush has had many political victories lately because his party works as a team. Democrats are never going to have that kind of party discipline, but we must realize that in order to survive the next election we will have to be unified. Ben Franklin said that we must all hang together, or assuredly, we will all hang seperately.

[skjpm]

18. sounds like the Bush war room pep talk to me

just say its working when its not. yes, bush has lot of victories, but he is bad president. maybe we should choose another example besides bush.

[Monte Carlo]

21. Spare us the 'sounds like' drama.

I don't like it either, but when a scattered, disorganized force goes up against a strong and unified one, the latter will win every time. Know thine enemy. Just because he's a fascist doesn't mean there's nothing we can learn from them.

[skjpm]

23. So, Stalin's tactics were OK, he just killed the wrong people?

Stalin was a winner. Let's do what he does. If Bush is such a mastermind, why not vote for him?

[Monte Carlo]

26. Don't distort this.

The melodrama is tiring. Instead of always comparing political teamwork to Stalin and Hitler, maybe you should also look at Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, or George Washington.

Bush is not a mastermind. But the people who work for him are very smart, and it's naive to think that we can learn nothing from them.

[sangh0]

32. Distortion is required

Look at his argument - "Why it's OK for a Dem who wants a Dem to win to attack the one and only Dem candidate for President"

On it's face, it's irrational. The only way to make it fly is by distorting the facts to misportray those who disagree as supporters of Bush*. If that doesn't work, then up the ante to Stalin.

[blondeatlast]

78. One word, er, icon...

:wtf:

You want to win people to your guy's side???

[skjpm]

22. Maybe the whole country should just fall in line with Bush

Let's not oppose anything, ever. Bush wants us all to unite so we can be a team. Yeah, let's do that. Teamwork equals dreamwork. There's no problems. No mistakes. Let's just unite. Kerry is wrong to doubt Bush--he's our president and he can never be wrong. And we shouldn't want a new president just because we don't agree.

Or--
We can have that spine and question our candidates. And we can even question Kerry and want someone else.

[Monte Carlo]

27. You need the candidate before you can question.

And do you really need to question our candidate? One might say you've already made up your mind.

[blondeatlast]

79. At the risk of repeating myself...

:wtf:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

36. Well..............that's an interesting post....n/t

[blm]

38. Not interesting. Just an honest depiction of what GOP operatives do

and have done to Democrats for over 3 decades.

Lucianne Goldberg got her start doing just that. Same with David Horowitz. Nothing new, though some of the younger folks might not be aware of its use as a campaign tactic.

[Old and In the Way]

47. blm, do you notice how many new posters use the word "liberal"

in their moniker? Then proceed to slam our choice? Coincidental? I think not.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

54. You should learn more about McCarthy

The rules allowed McCarthy to name the Commies, but he chose not to because he didn't have names. The rules on DU prevent us from posting names, but we have them.

And here's a clue for you - There's a difference between constructive criticism and attacks. There's also a difference between a fact and a lie. Pointing out the differences is NOT "McCarthyism".

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

59. So what? Who cares what you've been called?

Why are you so sensitive about this?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

66. You're even more sensitive than I first suspected

if my one post makes you fly off the handle like that. Maybe you should consider a less stressful hobby?

[blm]

63. Doesn't mean that they don't exist, here and elsewhere.

The whole point is to mingle with those who are possibly likeminded and foment discord.

Ever hear of Lucianne Goldberg? David Horowitz? The infiltrators of VVAW who tried to steer the protesting vets towards violent acts?

[seaglass]

30. Well, for the weak-kneed, when the going gets tough, I guess

they go looking for another candidate. For others they find inner strength and continue the fight.

So, you do whatever suits you.

[orwell]

33. Turnaround

Question overheard from RNC headquarters:

"Is it more important to defend Bush or to find a better candidate?"

I'll bet this question is asked over at the RNC every time * opens his mouth.

To put it another way, would you like to bet that Rove would rather have Kerry as a candidate than *? Imagine for a moment that Kerry had the press fawning over him, huge corporate backing, all three branches of government behind him, a monstrous war chest, the RW echo chamber and all the rest of *'s advantages. Do you even think that * would be within 20 points of an RNC backed Kerry?

The Dems have an extremely competent candidate. Unfortunately too many here haven't recognized it. While you obsess on what you perceive as Kerry's negatives, imagine if your candidate were Bush...

O

[liberalron]

39. Reactions to skjpm's post

While it is true that Kerry will be the Domcratic nominee, unless something happens between now and the convention, I am really dissapointed in the reponses to skjpm's post. What are you folks trying to do; drive more people to the Greens, to be Independants or just disengage from the politcal process as it is?
"That comment is over the line.
And he is nominated by the numbers. By the people."
(Do you really believe either of these lines?)
"Any candidate would be getting this same amount of smears.. But he is our candidate and he will be our candidate so complaining about "what ifs" are counter-productive."
(Agree re. the smears; however, it is not just the smears, but also the candidate. While skjpm's post may be wishful thinking, it is neither out of line or counter-productive, unless thinking and discussion are counter-productive.)
"Game Over. Kerry's the best and only shot. Take it or leave it. "
(Kerry may be the only shot; however that doesn't necessarily mean that he is the best. The 'Take it or leave it' line was "over the line and counterproductive.")
"Get rid of the most liberal candidate of our lifetime.
Get rid of one of the smartest candidates of our lifetime.
He doesn't use hot rhetoric that attracts internet message boards."
(Re. the 'most liberal' line, you must be a young voter. They all use hot rhetoric."
"More important to defend Kerry.
He's a great candidate. It matters not who we run for President, the RW would be smearing any of our choices as unfit. Lucky for us, we've chosen a great progressive Democrat that will be the next POTUS.
Grow a spine and stop whining."
(Defending Kerry is more important than defending one's principles? It cetainly does matter who we run for President. The Republicans insert Bush for Kerry and say they same thing, is it correct then?
Kerry is not a progressive, except in comparison to Bush. 'Grow a spine and stop whining' is also over the line and counterproductive.)
"Do as you will. As for the rest of us . . .
getting our energy and money behind Kerry gives us the best chance of winning back the WH. And THAT is the only thing that matters."
(At least you gave skjpm permission to do as they felt they should. How can winning back the WH. be the only thing that matters. Say we win back the office of President but the leadership in Congress stays the same, where are we then? Since it is the Congress that passes or defeats legislation, confirms or rejects appointments, etc., it is at least, if not more, important to replace the Congressional leadership and majority."
skjpm: How dare you question The Party? Get in line, Toe the line, Don't think, Don't question, Do Not express your opinions. Be a good soldier.
Seriously, don't be intimidated.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Your point escapes me. Do you have one?

If so, could you please state it without all the cutting and pasting?

[liberalron]

44. Are you trying?

I cut and paste to ensure that I do not misquote any other posters. I did originally have spaces between each, which made it easier to read; however it didn't go through, so I had to resend it, and the spaces disappeared.

I think that my points (there are more than one) are fairly obvious; so I shan't be repeating myself. Sorry they escaped you. Perhaps you should just skip my posts in the future.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. You mean you are unable to succinctly state your point(s)? Please try.

You can do it.

[sangh0]

60. They escaped me too

My eyes aren't very good, and I just couldn't read your post.

[Monte Carlo]

53. There are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

Among the DUers here. We'd all like to implement our ideals, but we must be realistic here.

Everybody has their own opinions and principals. But we also must recognize that there is strength in numbers, and much strength is going to be needed against Bush in November.

[liberalron]

67. Attack or Discuss?

Perhaps skjpm's post is unrealistic, but does it deserve all of the vitriol and personal attacks? Do we really need to treat our own, as the Bush supporters do?
I will be voting for John Kerry (as will skjpm, most likely); but I do not think that he is the best that we can do. If Kerry had maintained the caliber of principles and conviction that he exhibited during the early 1970s, I would be enthusiastically supporting him.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. too late for a better candidate

but I won't defend positions I am opposed to either.

[mim.k]

51. I'm afraid that may be true

I just feel that we have to stay united with one candidate, even if he's not the best... because if we break apart, Bush will win in an
instant. I don't think that kerry is the ideal candidate that I would choose if this world was a just and loving place, where we could hope for leaders that would respond strictly to what they believed in their hearts, rather than in their egos and pocketbooks... but Kerry is approachable to the public and is a hundred times more trustworthy to run the country with the public interest kept in mind, than Bush... If Kerry can actually win... then we'll have to work on him to right the wrongs of all the past politicians, and especially of Bush and move in the direction of making the government responsive to the needs of everyday people! We need to stay united, at least on issues we can all agree upon... the environment, health care, education, worker rights, the constitution, civil rights,
equality, etc.

[Hav]

41. .

First, todays polls' importance shouldn't get overestimated.
It's getting quite tiresome thinking about all these months I have to hear how we are doomed with Kerry.

"What if, as the polls show, he's not a winner?"

Yeah, let's choose our candidate because a current poll demands us to do that! Dean showed how meaningless polls before an election can be.


"I think I'm a better Democrat because I want to win, not just defend an obviously poor choice."

Well, that was an extraordinary sentence. You think you are a better Democrat because you want to win more than defending a candidate that you personally consider a poor choice?
You think that putting your personal preferences above what the majority of your fellow "Dems" think makes you a better Democrats? I disagree.
What it shows is that it's again about "Me, me , ME!!!"
It's about "I didn't get my candidate and it is so clear that we have the wrong candidate. We all know that everybody would have preferred my candidate. Screw the Primaris, screw all the Dems who voted. I want my candidate and I want him now!"


"But I'm tired of people who define being a Democrat as loyalty to Kerry."

I'm tired of people who define being a Democrat as being automatically against any fucking thing that Kerry stands for.
I'm tired of people who claim to be morally superior, who claim to be better human beings, who claim to be smarter and who claim to be better Democrats just because they are so sure of the position they have without realising that it's only an opinion among many differing opinions.

[liberalron]

42. Me, me, ME!!!

"What it shows is that it's again about "Me, me , ME!!!""

(Were you referring to skjpm, or yourself? You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, based on little or no information; and you seem to be thinking and speaking for other people.)

[Hav]

46. .

I based my post on what the original poster of this thread did write.

I don't speak for other people. Behaviour of some people lead me to make conclusions about what they believe as they were very vocal about that. I don't have to assume too much because they leave no doubt about what they want and believe. So again, I based my opinions about them on what these people said. I don't have to make things up.

[liberalron]

62. Really?

"I'm tired of people who define being a Democrat as being automatically against any fucking thing that Kerry stands for.
I'm tired of people who claim to be morally superior, who claim to be better human beings, who claim to be smarter and who claim to be better Democrats just because they are so sure of the position they have without realising that it's only an opinion among many differing opinions."

Sorry, I must have missed this part of skjpm's post.

[Hav]

64. Yeh, really.

The first part was in direct response to him, the last part, and that should have been clear, was a summary of what I have seen the last months that were just like this post. I was talking about "people" , meaning more than one guy.
He said he believed to be a better Democratic and it was similar to other people claiming the moral highground just because of their opinions.

I don't know how long you have been reading and how much time you did spend here. But like I said, the behaviour of other people here who left no doubt about what they think, lead me to make my conclusions. They themselves said it, not me.
I guess you must have missed many threads like this one.

[leftistagitator]

48. You're not a better Democrat than anyone

You had your chance to campaign for someone you liked more during the PRIMARIES. Either you didn't, or you lost, so get over it. No elections were stolen here. If you don't like Kerry so much that you're trying to campaign against him during the general election, then you're as much a Democrat as Zell traitor Miller. Kerry didn't seem indecisive when he got the silver in Vietnam, nor was he indecisive as head of VVAW. He has 20 years of standing up for liberal causes in the Senate. What have you done?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

50. I thought he was so 'electable"

unlike that unstable nutjob I supported, Howard Dean. Hate to say I told everyone so, but this is what happens when you let Terry McAulliffe pick the nominee for you.

It's official-buyer's remorse has set in.

But we're stuck with the guy. Now we need to to hold his feet to the fire and make sure he runs a decent campaign.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

52. That unstable nutjob would be 20 points behind Bush

And would lose every state, with the possible exception of Vermont.

Kerry at least gives us a chance.

[Classical_Liberal]

72. I don't believe this

. He polled just as well against Bush as Kerry. Anyway, the dendiacs are going to get their due eventually. We're getting involved in the party so look out.

[blm]

74. Oh great. A bunch of former liberals adopting REAL centrism and

praising it as pragmatism as long as it SOUNDS like anarchy.

;))))))

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Umm you're saying the democrats DON'T want to win congress?

That makes no sense.

[Dookus]

73. Terry McAuliffe didn't pick the nominee...

the majority of Democratic primary voters did so, and did so overhwelmingly. They gave your guy the big boot.

If Dean couldn't even win a primary outside his own state, then how the hell could he win the general election? It's a ridiculous belief.

[VOX]

55. Kerry *will* be the Democratic nominee; as such, he has my full support...

He was not my first (or second, or even third) choice, but he did win the lion's share of the delegates, and he will be nominated at the Democratic Convention in July.

I am a lifelong Democrat, and since Kerry will be the Democratic candidate for president -- he does not have to "earn" my vote. He has been chosen by Democratic voters (and perhaps also by others in open primaries) to be the standard bearer.

If we are to beat * in November, a certain amount of discipline will be required, no small part of which means lining up behind our candidate and supporting him.

[Zorra]

57. It is more important to defend Kerry.

Kerry is going to be the Democratic nominee. The people have spoken.

That's it.

Any more questions?

[SEpatriot]

65. No turning back now

Kerry is the choice. He's not perfect. Unfortunately, Robert Kennedy will not be resurrected to become the perfect candidate! I won't always agree w/Kerry and I didn't always agree w/Clinton. It is, howevever, absolutely imperative that Bush is removed from office!!!

The real focus for progressive Dems has to be for Congress - now and beyond 2004. If you want to build a real, progressive America its going to take a lot of work on a case-by-case state-by-state level. Which, strangely enough, will probably be easier than electing a President.

[mitchum]

80. Oh look! Another "BITCH" thread...

that's so 2 weeks ago

"I think I'm a better Democrat..." Apparently the Democrats who voted in the primaries disagree.

As a great candidate once said, "GET OVER IT"

[agincourt]

84. Bottom line,

If we have a joke election like '88, that's nothing but Willie Horton flag torching crap for issues , we're doomed. We could run JFK/FDR incarnate and lose. If we have a serious election like '92 where people are concerned about their country we can win with damn near anybody. The challenge will be to keep this election from being a Rove-circus. We got to get the people worried about their future not bullshit stuff like gay marriage and terrorists that can hit us if the FBI just lies down.