Are there any candidate supporters who can be honest and admit...

[vi5]

That perhaps may some of the fears that people may have about your candidate may not be completely unfounded (or bashing, or smearing or whatever)? As an undecided that is kind of what bothers me most about all of these warring factions of candidate supporters.

Can some Clark supporters at least admit that part of them worries that he may be too governmentally inexperienced or lack the track record to get elected?

Can some Kerry supporters admit that they are afraid that maybe his lackluster and questionable primary campaign style and lack of fight might show that he doesn't have the fight in him needed for the general election?

Can some Dean supporters admit that part of them worries Deans personality and/or angry rhetoric might not play well around the country and in the general election among needed swing voters?

Can many of you admit that, yeah your candidate has made some doozy mistakes and if only for a minute it might have given you pause.

I"m not saying that admitting any of this would mean that you think your candidate is not the best one in the field. Just a little intellectual honesty, and admitting that despite the stubbornness and anger being exhibited, that there is a least a part of you that can see what might worry some people (either undecideds or specific candidate supporters alike) about your particular choice. All our candidates are human and thus all of them are imperfect in some ways. But reading a lot of these threads you'd think that this person was the second coming of superman, jesus, ghandi, and MLK all rolled into one democratic package. And that just reminds me too much at times of the myopic, messianic approach taken by bush supporters in 2000 and up to this date.

[Padraig18]

1. I can, and have done so previously. n/t

[maddezmom]

2. sure can, none of the candidates are perfect n/t

[tedoll78]

3. I am a Dean man..

and I fully admit occasional apprehension about how his personality would play in a general election.

I've even switched to Clark before. But then I switched back for a number of reasons..

[patricia92243]

4. I'll happily admit that I'm afraid Dean will not continue his combative

style that has put him in the front runner place. If he loses his passion, he will lose the race.

[PAMod]

5. I have and will admit these, but my guy is still the strongest candidate.

It is annoying to hear the SAME beefs again and again and again.

It is like people think we can't possibly merely disagree.

But, isn't it great!?

Come the GE, we will all be supporting our nominees (hopefully) and both major parties will wonder the same things that you have stated.

[liberalmuse]

6. Nope. A waste of time.

We should be focusing on beating Bush, because not a single one of our candidates even comes close to being as bad as any member of the current administration.

In the meantime, liberals are beating up and smearing all of their candidates so badly that when one is finally chosen to run against Bush, we aren't going to be able to unite because of bad feelings. There is no way one can take back all the damage done to each and every candidate here on DU and elsewhere in the Democratic Party. That is, unless we can stop right now and put our focus on Bush and his heinous policies instead of badmouthing our only hopes of throwing this evil administration out of our government.

[vi5]

10. But my point is that I think that's what causes this venom....

If someone concedes certain points in an argument but gives counter arguments that are convincing enough, it's much better and makes us much better equipped than people who say "My candidate is the only candidate who can beat bush!!!" or who simply dismiss any criticism out of hand as bashing. If you can admit a flaw you can work on it and change it before it gets the better of you. If you simply deny that flaw and deflect onto the other persons flaws then come time to actually use a specific trait if you haven't worked on it and have pretended it doesn't exist then you are toast.

[carpetbagger]

7. No, I can't admit that Clark is governmentally inexperienced.

He spent his life in government service. He worked at OMB and worked at the White House. He held high positions in the DOD in which he had extensive congressional interaction. He's been in charge of huge commands. His last command had 44,000 enrolled schoolchildren, and much of the bread and butter of these positions is about caring for soldiers and dependents. He's the ONLY candidate for president, Bush included, who's negotiated a peace treaty.

[vi5]

9. I think you know what I mean...

Perhaps that was the wrong term to use. But the fact is that the president needs to be for better or worse a politician. Clark is not a politician and I don't think he would claim to be.

Plus, what I was talking about was largely perception of these candidates not the actuality of it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. Also has a masters in Political Science.... He's also a "quick study"

n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

8. It's called Cognitive Dissonance.... A common malady in politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=65015

Every candidate (Republican and Democratic) has followers who are afflicted with this malady... This phenomenon also helps to explain why so many people still support Bush despite all of the scandals.

What is it?

Dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling that we get when we strongly believe in something or someone and then a piece of contradictory information comes along that makes us question that person or belief.

People work to avoid dissonance. We have a drive to be consistent. We will have to either change our behavior or our belief in an effort to avoid this uncomfortable feeling. If a person has put a lot of energy (emotional or physical) in to something or someone or has invested a lot of money or time – they will stick to the behavior (supporting the person) instead of their beliefs. They will then have to “rationalize” their behavior. Amazingly, most people will change their beliefs in order to accommodate the behavior.

Cognitive Dissonance can cause people to suddenly do or believe in sorts of things that they normally wouldn’t, or to develop opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/25_bush.html
If (supporting someone or something) has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to change. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

When presented with the facts, though, Bush's True Believers do what the administration's neo-cons did when presented with intelligence that didn't square with their Iraq invasion plans: They blame the messenger. They get surly and defensive. ....They neatly parcel things into "us" vs. "them." "Good" vs. "evil." "Patriot" vs. "traitor." It's myopic and messianic, and it defies all logic and common sense.



http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/cogdiss.cfm

People avoid information that is likely to increase dissonance. ..... We usually choose to be with people who are like us. By taking care to ‘‘stick with our own kind," we can maintain the relative comfort of the status quo. Like-minded people buffer us from ideas that could cause discomfort. In that sense, the process of making friends is an example of selecting our own propaganda.


http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030106/000551.html

So if you believe in George W. Bush -- and polls say that a significant majority of Americans do -- but don't approve of cutting pensions for long-term workers, then (1) you can turn against Bush. Or (2) you can decide that Bush is right and that corporate interests are more important than worker pensions. Or (3) you can take the easy path and simply deny that pensions are in jeopardy.

"There's a prediction you can make down the line: The more unpopular his policies, the higher his poll numbers are going to get," Cooper continued. Why? Because we are human, alas. As long as we support someone, we must incrementally increase our approval in the face of criticism. .... people either abandon Bush or their faith in him rises to a level greater than the sum of the condemnation.

…Opposition can …. harden, although not necessarily deepen, one's base of support. And remember, there's no small number of fence-sitters willing to side with a winner against all comers no matter what the party affiliation."

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

17. The Technical term for this is Cranial Rectitus

Symptoms can include giving someone a generally shitty outlook on life.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Clark heads my list...

not that it makes much difference with our primary in June.

I've got a couple of problems with him-- the main one being something I heard somewhere else. And it was absolutely verifed. Not a dealbreaker, or even a big deal, but a little troubling.

(YES! Believe it or not, I actually heard something about a candidate that wasn't already beaten to death on DU! Will wonders never cease?)

What it simply means is that there is not one perfect candidate for any of us. Nobody's come up with a dealbreaker for me for any of the candidates, although some have come close, but ultimately all of them would have different governing styles and major advantages and disadvantages coming from those differing styles.

Can we know for sure that Clark, or anyone else, will actually be the best choice in November? Aside from the election, will he be the best President of the available choices?

No. We have no crystal balls and we have no way of looking into their souls and knowing how they will act with the Washington follies and all of the possibilities in the future. We don't know what problems they will face, how they would react to them, or what the rest of the infinite number of players in the game will do to affect outcomes.

We simply trust that we pick the best person with the qualities to live up to the job.

It's worked, more or less, for over 200 years.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Kerry

Your characterize it as "his lackluster and questionable primary campaign style and lack of fight might show that he doesn't have the fight in him needed for the general election?"


Well, first off, I'd just say it is ridiculous to say a 'lack of fight' -- it almost seems as if you stopped reading the news last fall. I will admit that Kerry didn't run a tough enough campaign in the early rounds and let the buzz go to Dean. I'll admit he waited too long to fire Jordan. I'll admit he underestimated Dean's momentum. But I'd wait till a few folks have voted, before I count him out, if I were you. Elections are won and lost in the final weeks and days, and that is just starting for the first primaries.

[vi5]

15. You see...."questionable".....means it "could" be questioned...

I didn't say you had to. The whole point of the thread is that there are criticisms of candidates and I don't often hear supporters big enough to admit most of them.

You provided several reasons yourself (his lack of fight, etc.) and those are more or less exactly what I meant.

I wasn't writing off any candidate. Just echoing some of the criticisms people have had that I would like to see some candidate supporters admit may have some validity.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. No you used the term

'lack of fight' and I am saying it is nothing but a media-driven myth. I do admit that some folks think that about Kerry, just as some folks think that Bush is intelligent.

lol

[diamondsoul]

14. Well, let's see-

there were a couple of things Kucinich has done or not done that aggravated me as a supporter, but they weren't particularly horrifying or damaging to my support of him.

Kucinich's problems aren't with him directly so much as his organization (both verb and noun). And yes this is a bad thing, but it can be worked around and/or overcome even this late in the process.

That's about the worst thing I can say about my candidate, and generally when someone brings up a rational criticism I try to counter it with rational refutations. It's when I hear stupidity like "the keebler elf candidate doesn't stand a chance!" that I can't respond with anything any less pointless.

[Selwynn]

18. Yup - my candidate has problems, BUT ---

I believe they are the problems we are best equipped to deal with. No on is perfect, but I believe my canddiate is right for 2004 - warts and all.

[cally]

19. Sure, and I have

I despise the School of the Americas and what it stands for. I still believe that Clark will do more to build international coalitions, stop ethnic cleansing, and work for peace. I think he can stand up better to the military/industrial complex. I sure wish he would come out against SOA.

[Barbara917]

20. As A Clark supporter may answers are

"Can some Clark supporters at least admit that part of them worries that he may be too governmentally inexperienced or lack the track record to get elected?"

No. He is not governmentally inexperienced. My greatest concern is that he has too much integrity to get elected. I fear that nice guys finish last and pray every day he will prove my fears unfounded.

"Can many of you admit that, yeah your candidate has made some doozy mistakes and if only for a minute it might have given you pause."

Yes. He has made mistakes. They gave me pause until I researched them. Talking to a reporter on a plane. Giving advice to a partisan. Trading hats with Mladic.

[worldgonekrazy]

21. Yeah I have a number of concerns about Dean

But I see most of them as inconsequential and far outweighed by my concerns with other candidates.

[blm]

22. The fight Kerry has is different

than the soundbite fight that some people want.

He was slow to rise to battle against Dean and THAT is my biggest beef with his campaign. I had Dean pegged on three lies against the other candidates back in February last year. Granted, Kerry was off the campaign trail at the time Dean started the attacks on him, but if I was running his campaign, I would have had Dean's lying ass in a sling last March.