Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I'm sick of the Clinton and Kerry bashing threads

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:31 AM
Original message
I'm sick of the Clinton and Kerry bashing threads
First of all, the number of anti-Clinton/Kerry threads repeatedly appearing on the boards is suspect.

Why has it become so important, all of a sudden to bash? In a country where the Constitution is being ripped to shreds, Clinton and Kerry are NOT the enemy. Neither has done a thing to hurt the American people, nor have they lied or stolen from us. On the other hand, there are crooks with their hands in the till as we speak.

How about focusing on the real enemy for a fucking moment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. I agree, and I thought it was against the DU rules
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I don't think it's against DU rules as everybody will not like a
particular candidate--there's room for disagreement. But even if it's not against the rules, seeing three anti-Kerry or Clinton threads on the front page is disturbing.

It's a waste of time and it takes the focus away from the more serious issues. It also smacks of propoganda--people trying to change others' minds, and turn them against Clinton. This is not that place that this should be happening.

After witnessing Clinton being torn down for eight years, I really don't care to see it happen again, especially here. As Clinton said on his interview with Jennings, when he was being lauded by the entire world at the UN, they showed his grand jury testimony--anything to block his greatness. Let the man have his moment(s).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
39. Hopefully, having an opinion is not against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
72. The subject line refers to BASHING, not criticism
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #72
98. One man's criticism is another mans bashing..
... wouldn't you agree that there's not agreed upong definition that effectively differentiates the two in some peoples minds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #98
118. No, i wouldn't agree to that
I think there would be agreement among people who disagree about most things that statements like "Kerry thinks he's the boss because he just sent me an email asking for my support on a child-care bill" is nothing more than bashing.

Statements like this are in no way constructive. Neither are things like "Clinton should shut the fuck up" merely because he said he likes bush*

I would also hope that "criticisms" based entirely on fictions would be seen as not qualifying as "constructive"

I don't see how repeating the lies that Drudge tells makes it "constructive"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #118
124. Are you sure?
Couldn't it be considered criticism to say the Bill Clinton doesn't help progressives or average Americans when he stands up and publicly calls for the two parties to hold hands and sing love songs? I think it would fall under the rubric of "criticism" to suggest that minimizing the brutality of the neo-conservative fascist-hijacked republican party is a tragic mistake, especially not while many are still fighting - without media support or serious part support - to get an actual fair count of the vote and undo the fraud that has been committed.

You can disagree with that point of view, but I think I can make a perfectly fine case that this is a "criticism" - regardless of whether it includes the phrase "Clinton should shut the fuck up" (which he should.)

I think that it is criticism to suggest that John Kerry, as the loser of the election, should perhaps stop thinking so much about trying to lose another election in 2008, and more about what's best for the Democratic party right now, and I'm not necessarily sure what's best is for him to become "Super-Senator" and work outside party leadership in john-Wayne style to push agendas. Personally, I don't fully agree with that criticism - but that's just the thing. Just because I disagree doesn't mean it is therefore nothing but bashing with no value. I just disagree.

Just some examples of how one person can see bashing where another doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinbella Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Somebody slept while we lost the game
Repukes are evil. Democrats should have been watching my back?
Where were they? Where are they now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. THANKS!
this is simply a 'meeee tooooo' post. :yourock:

Just look at what is happening with Delay. Suddenly the tables are turned so the house is rebuking the guy who wants DELAY brought to justice? This country is turning inside out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. SO AM I!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. read this, you'll feel better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sporadicus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. A Donor Star
shouldn't entitle a poster to spam DU with Clinton- and Kerry-bashing rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I bet you'd never see anti-Reagan or Nixon threads in freeperville. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Are they gods?
If we can't vent about our leaders or candidates or take up serious concerns about them in a any forumn then we become just like the mindless drones of the Republican party. Then are not gods they are men and are not above reproach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. No they are not Gods but the criticism is excessive and frankly,
it's pointless. Clinton is not in office, nor is Kerry. So why all the excessive negative attention? It seems to only have one purpose--to tear down their images of strength in order to divide us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
9. I agree!
One has to wonder at the purpose of those threads at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. Cause we all KNOW *they're* bad....

I'm not sure of the content of the threads to which you refer as I've been off the board for a few days.

But the idea that that only the "really" bad guys should be critiqued here is shortsighted, to put it mildly. One of the great things about a forum like this is the opportunity for self-examination. We are a party which has not achieved fifty percent in a nat'l election since *CARTER*!

Big Bill, despite the subsequent mystique and mythology, polled 43% and 49% ( with a great economy, an all southern ticket and and a weak reelect opponent) in his nat'l runs, respectively. Gore and Kerry garnered 49 and 48 repectively, but ferchrissakes, look who they were running against. What is Hillary or whomever, going to do when they have to face an adult opponent in 2008 ( McCain, Powell, whomever)? One that can actually speak and think??? I think you're looking at a McGovern/Mondale type landslide, frankly.

As a national party, we got problems. Better to hash them out here and now than pretend that nothing is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Guess what? Bill WON.
There's not a shred of doubt about that. That's far more than I can say about your candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. That is utter BS
No doubt about Kerry or Clinton are you kidding. I voted for both of them but they are not prefect. Go to these sights and check out some of the articles there. http://www.counterpunch.com http://www.freepress.org

Also before you open your mouth and say that they are Repug websites NOTHING can be further from the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. I'm not sure what you are talking about nor will I visit the site
I'll repeat what I said before: Clinton WON the elections fair and square. There is NO DOUBT about that. Bush's selections have been plagued by fraud and disenfranchisement of voters. Better an elected president than a selected one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lenidog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. We got crossed signals
I thought you were saying that Clinton was without faults not that he didn't win his elections fair and square. Do check them out the are great sites with great writers. There haven't been really any Clinton articles save one. If you don't you are missing out and if you don't agree with a single writer it will definitely give you some food for thought. I will check in later because more immediate concerns have come up. The paycheck just arrived in the mail and I need cash it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
73. That's because of your reactionary response to the word "bashing"
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:47 PM by sangh0
You speak as if the criticisms of "bashing" is a criticism of ALL criticism.

Constructive criticism is encouraged. Bashing is not.

15 threads exoriating Clinton because he said he likes bush* is NOT "constructive"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
67. utter bullshit back to you ...
There is absolutely nothing to be gained from savaging our own. Da nada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. wrong...we are a party that hasn't achieved since "the contract on America
newt and the neocon agenda...and part of that agenda is to instigate infighting agmonst dems by infiltraing the party with the DLC...the DLC was created by the neocons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
14. But linazelle, how are we gonna separate the liberals...
...from the uberliberals if we're not allowed to bash Clinton and Kerry??!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
17. Clinton was a great president. Kerry won.
That being said, I dislike what Clinton says these days (not to Jennings, that was good). Kerry broke his promise to fight for us when conceded .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greenohio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
19. I agree. I have been defending Clinton and threads all over the place.
There is a school of thought that says Clinton was soo centrist that it destroyed the party. Whatever. They discount the Reagan landslides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. The "scool of thought" is a new GOP talking point as noted here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
22. Clinton and Kerry deserve criticism.
Clinton gave the Republicans NAFTA and got nothing in return. He failed in health care. His private behavior cost us the election in 2000. Kerry told us what a fighter he was and how every vote would be counted. He conceded the election the very next day when none of the votes had been counted. None of this should be swept under the carpet. Are they preferable to Bush? Of course. But they both let us down in a way that Bush has not let his supporters down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. "His private behavior cost us the election in 2000..." ????
You're kidding right? I guess you never heard of Katherine Harris and Diebold or Volusia County. And I thought denial was just a River in Egypt...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. It should never been close enough to steal.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 10:21 AM by wurzel
Had it not been for Clinton's behavior it wouldn't have been. Do you seriously contend that Harris had more to do with the defeat of Gore than Clinton? Has Kerry contested the Diabold machines?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. The examples I gave were reminders of the real machinations behind
grand theft 2000 aka as the presidential election. As for Harris, I do contend that she was part of a cast of thousands (i.e. Bush/Cheney's Supreme Court justice/hunting buddy Scalia, James Baker, the RW media) who had everything to do with the slick theft of the presidency in 2000 and now in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. All only too true. But
that does not exonerate Clinton and Kerry. Much as I detest Bush I cannot imagine him behaving the way Clinton did in the White House. Nor can I imagine him conceding the election the way Kerry did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Oh so it's OK for Bush to lie & cover wrong doing that has cost
tens of thousands of lives but if he ever had a BJ in the White House, WELL, that would be HORRIBLE. Sounds like some Kool Aid drinking's been going on somewhere to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. No one is saying that.
But I am still waiting for you to explain how Clinton's behavior and Kerry's concession helps us win elections. I expect nothing from Bush. I do expect something from Clinton and Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Why are you waiting for me to explain something that I've not mentioned
What is your point here at all? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. My point is we can't hide behind Bush.
We lost the last two elections. Either because we didn't get enough votes or because no one cared enough to get them counted. It makes no difference. Clinton was mostly to blame for Gore's loss. After assuring us through the entire campaign that our votes would be counted, Kerry caved. If we don't grasp this we have no future. Bush was a weak opponent in both elections. BUT WE LOST. We are unlikely to get so weak an opponent in the future. We have to understand how a man with Bush's appalling resume, record and policies ever even came close to being President of our Country. Kerry conceding the way he did is equally inexplicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. My point is you can't blame Kerry or Clinton. No one expected the first
round of election thievery and we were powerless to do anything about getting votes counted after Bush's Supremes stepped in. Trying to follow logical lines of reason to explain campaign strategies and election outcomes when the rules have been changed by thievery is an exercise in futility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. Kerry had millions of dollars over from the campaign.
Why not buy some voting machines????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
50. You have 1,000 posts and you don't understand why buying voting
machines would be a mistake for any candidate? Are you suggesting that Kerry cheat? When has a candidate bought voting machines directly for that matter--that's a state responsibiilty. Ever heard of BBV during the time you built up all those posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. You prefer to have the Republicans buy them?
I don't see what the number of posts I have has to do with anything. To make sure voting machines are not made by Diabold, and that there are enough machines so that people are not waiting in line for eight hours is not "cheating". Where did you get the idea that I was suggesting Kerry "cheat'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #53
58. Buying voting machines is the responsibility of the states..not president-
ial candidates. And buying them would not guarantee they'd be made available since that would be the responsibility of the states as well.

As for the cheating reference: electronic voting machines are basically a tool for stealing votes and if that's what you are suggesting that Kerry purchase, then I equate that with advocating cheating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
70. Electronic machine without a paper trail is way of cheating.
So buy the Scanner type. Any election can be audited at a price. So audit them! Are you still willing to leave it to the states to decide on how elections are conducted? Even with the results of the last two elections? The fewest voting machines were in Democratic counties. I doubt these counties would object to a little help from the DNC to buy voting machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. What is it about states responsibility for buying machines that you
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:52 PM by linazelle
are missing? Buying more is no guarantee that they will be made available. No state has come forward and asked for more machines. If Kerry bought them, who exactly would they go to in a country with 50 states and how we he assure they are used? This is not a solution, it is a non-issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #74
82. Potential Kerry voters waited in the rain for hours to vote.
Who knows how many didn't. Why isn't election day a national holiday? If our own Democratic election officials won't ask for help after an election like the last what possible chance do we have in the future? Do you believe that the next election will be any fairer than this if we do nothing but "leave it to the States"? Incidental we would give the machines to Democratic counties not states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. You obviously want to continue to blame Kerry for things which he has
no control over. If political operatives are in place to ensure that machines aren't available next election as they were in the recent one, Kerry's donations would mean little. It is expected that the next election will be as fraudulent as this one but buying machines who solve the problem nor will bashing Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #84
90. Kerry is, or was, the leader of the Democratic Party.
You may think that Kerry fairly lost this election. I don't. If we do nothing for the next four years what makes you think the next election will be different? Kerry could have made a point. He could have taken his excess dollars from the campaign and had the DNC buy voting machines. The machines then could have been donated to those counties in Ohio where there was a clear shortage of machines. Do this with as much publicity as you can get. What is the point of spending half a billion dollars on a election campaign when you won't spend a few million on making sure your people can vote? And that their vote is counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Not true.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 01:31 PM by sangh0
Kerry has never been the "leader of the party". The DNC is an organization and it has a chairman. His name is Terry McAuliffe. As head of the DNC, *HE* is "the leader of the party"

wurzel's arguments depend on fallacious definitions:

Bashing = constructive criticism

Dem candidate = leader of the party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #90
103. And when did the "shortage" of voting machines in OH become known?
You are saying Kerry should have known beforehand that there were shortages--which still has not been proven--and he could have helped by buying machines. Where is your proof of (a) a shortage --remembering that not making machines available does not mean there is a shortage only that they were withheld; and (b) that Kerry knew in time to help out?

This is nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. It is known now isn't it?
My "proof" is eight hour long lines. If they were "withheld" they were "withheld" by Democrats! These were Democratic counties. Controlled by Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. It is known now, and your point is still missing the mark.
Knowing after the fact doesn't change what happened. Throwing machines out there does not alleviate the problem either--the problem is those who manage the inventories. Why should somebody spend $15 million on machines only to turn them over to people who can't assure that they will be used? Buying machines is a non issue. There are way more important things that have to be done like getting to the root causes for the shortages and fraud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #111
115. We can't change history. We can only influence the future.
If voting machines don't matter. What does? Bev Harris has been on about these machines from the beginning. But they were used just the same. Even though everyone knew they were crooked. The machines were the fraud! And in Democratically controlled districts! Should we spend more money for TV ads?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #84
91. That's what you get when you can't distinguish bashing from criticism
Even things like "Kerry voters waited in the rain for hours to vote" and the fact that it was the STATES that bought the machines, not Kerry, become "constructive criticism"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #70
75. Does that mean they deserve BASHING?
I noticed that in your first post in this part of the thread, you said that "Kerry and Clinton deserve criticism", which I see as a straw man, because lizanelle complained of "bashing" and not "criticism"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #75
87. You may want to quibble with words.
I don't know of anyone who is "Bashing" Clinton and Kerry. That sounds like a "strawman". I supported Kerry and thought him a great candidate until he conceded before the votes were counted. I think he won this election It was a terrible mistake that may set the precedent for the next election. After 2000 no Democrat can ever concede before the votes are counted. Period. I thought this was understood by Kerry. Write it in the "DNC rule book". How many times must we learn that lesson!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. So "there's no difference" between "bashing" and "criticism"?
It's just a "quiblle with words"?

"There's no difference" between the points you raise (which I see as valid and constructive criticism, though I don't agree with you) and something like "Clinton should just shut the fuck up"?

Can you explain how "Clinton should just shut the fuck up"? is constructive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. No I don't. But I haven't seen such a thread either.
If there was one the alert button should have been pressed. Not a new thread started that brings the whole thing up again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. Why do you continue to avoid the question?
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 01:35 PM by sangh0
Is there a difference between "bashing" and "constructive criticism"? If yes, what distinguishes one from the other?

You just implied "there's no difference". You called it a "quibble with words"

Now, you're implying that *that* sort of criticism is inappropriate. Is it "bashing? Is it "constructive criticism"? Is there a difference? If not, then why do you think that constructive criticism should have been deleted by the mods?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
117. I used the word "criticism" right up front.
Sorry put this on the wrong post #. I am not sure what you mean by "bashing". Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one? I think I bash Bush all the time. But I don't use foul language nor do I misrepresent him. There is no need. "Cheney is a crook". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"? The same is true of Kerry and Clinton. "Clinton's behaviour in the Oval office was disgraceful". Is that "bashing" or "criitcism"? "Kerry's immediate concession was a betrayal of his supporters". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. And again you avoid the question
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 04:43 PM by sangh0
I am not sure what you mean by "bashing".

Really? If you don't even know what "bashing" is, then why are posting in a thread about bashing?

Why are you taking a position on bashing when you don't even know what it is? (Oh, you haven't taken a position on bashing? Then what are you doing in this thread?)

Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one?

You tell me! Is foul language a part of "constructive criticism"? Always or just some of the time? There's much you could talk about here, but for some reason, you continually avoid the issue of "bashing" even though it's the subject of this thread.

You are trying to hide behind the lack of a clear definition for the word "clarity", but in spite of their being no clear definition, it's obvious that we all have an opinion on what is appropriate criticism and what is inappropriate.

But for some reason, you avoid this point like the plague, even though it's the central issue in this thread. Jst about every poster in this thread has referred to the notion of "constructive criticism vs bashing", including you, and yet you refuse to discuss it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-21-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #119
131. I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Edited on Sun Nov-21-04 11:45 AM by wurzel
You have suddenly introduced "constructive criticism" in quotes as if you are quoting me. I don't recall ever using the term "constructive criticism". Every time I make what seems to me to be a good faith effort to understand how bashing differs from criticism you claim I am avoiding the issue. You define what you call "bashing". Can you do it any better than I can? Give me an example of what you call "bashing". And what you call "criticism".

I will try again. Perhaps "bashing" is a matter of repetition. Take the so called "Dean Scream". When it was first aired I thought it unfair and distorting but not "bashing". But they showed it over 700 times in that negative way. Now that seemed to me to be "bashing".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #75
107. I used the word "criticism" right up front.
I am not sure what you mean by "bashing". Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one? I think I bash Bush all the time. But I don't use foul language nor do I misrepresent him. There is no need. "Cheney is a crook". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"? The same is true of Kerry and Clinton. "Clinton's behaviour in the Oval office was disgraceful". Is that "bashing" or "criitcism"? "Kerry's immediate concession was a betrayal of his supporters". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AG78 Donating Member (840 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
23. Certainly better than Bush
"Neither has done a thing to hurt the American people"

But I'm not sure where that comes from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
28. Again, this is a GOP taling point spread here by freepers
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 10:29 AM by robbedvoter
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&f...
It was on theit talking points memo today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Everyone who has a problem with Clinton and Kerry is a "Freeper"?
"Freepers" did not put that stain on on Lewinsky's dress. Nor did "Freepers" concede the election before one vote had been counted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. No dear stain obsessed poor thing. I have my problems with each
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 10:43 AM by robbedvoter
see my post at # 17. It's just this new talking point: "we lost because of Clinton" that was started on the media ny a GOP strategist that is freeperish
Sorry you don't get any. (not really)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Well I can see how we lost the last election.
If we don't understand how Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office was so offensive to most Americans we have no hope of ever winning another. And we don't deserve to. I can't remember Gore being seen with Clinton during the whole 2000 campaign. Why on Earth do you think that was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #38
40. Doesn't matter...the election was s-t-o-l-e-n. Why do you think that was?
You are trying to insert an invalid argument into a valid discussion about the bashing being senseless. Fraud is a factor that cannot be circumvented when it is widespread which is what we are faced with now thanks to your president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. If the election was "Stolen" why hasn't Kerry said so?
The fact is Bush is "my President" thanks to a total failure of the Democratic Party leadership to stand and fight. Both in 2000 and 2004. I heard some argument about how much money Kerry had over in his campaign. And no one knows what to do with it? BUY SOME VOTING MACHINES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. It's obvious Bush is your president but it's not due to a total failure of
the Democratic Party leadership. It's due to lies, corruption and thievery and the fact that you seem to be unable to acknowledge that speaks volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. That there were lies, corruption and thievery is obvious.
The question is what to do about it. We now have the most corrupt administration perhaps in our history in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. And what are we getting from our leaders? Quote Clinton the other day. "I must be the only person in America who likes both Kerry and Bush". Kerry "We must unite the country now". Unite the country behind Bush? And you seem to think I am the problem???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Bush also called for uniting the country but I guess that's OK even though
he does the exact opposite at every turn--you never hear that from the media. The media extracts what they want you to parrot and they'd like us to think that Bush has support from all quarters--as untrue as that is. Clinton and Kerry have both voiced their disdain for what's going on in the country as well, Clinton did that during the interview with Jenning the other night. Still all of these men are politicians. They utter niceties publicly because they are almost required to but don't pretend that's these few sentences embody all that Kerry or Clinton have said or done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
80. Nothing Bush has done has been "OK" with me.
I don't need lessons about Bush. If Kerry and Clinton have disdain for what is going on the country then surely they must hold Bush responsible. I do. I agree that these men are politicians. But you can say a lot with omission as well. I regard the Bush administration as utterly corrupt. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I don't think so. I think now is the time for the Democratic leadership to go after Bush and his gang with no holds barred. Bash them all day and every day. Block every way they can. If necessary bring the entire government to a standstill. Except for supporting the troops. With what the Republicans are getting away with today what do we have to lose? Do you really believe the next election will be different than the last two if we don't play hardball now? The days for "niceties" are over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #80
100. "Go after Bush and bring the entire government to a standstill"...
"Bash them all day every day..."

On the one hand I agree. Bringing the government to standstill is possible. I'm not sure whether we can do that having lost so many seats. It is time to make a stand--but when you have the RW sneakily sandwiching legislation for abortion in with bills that would benefit Americans, all we will hear is that our people failed to vote for the good laws.

On the other hand, I am not so sure that bashing would be picked up by the media. What we will hear and see of this will be controlled in Bush's favor.

At least these are solutions which are not singling out and bashing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #100
114. I believe our country is in serious trouble.
I really thought Kerry would win this election. And in my heart I believe he did. This "election" has not only made the next four years legitimate it has validated the last four years. It has validated the war in Iraq. The "Home Security Act". What happened in that Iraq prison. The politicization of all our institutions from the CIA to the Church. The give away of Social Security money to the rich in the form of "tax cuts". I could go on and on. Many people may become convinced that things can no longer be changed through the ballot box. Either they will switch off, or take to the streets. I don't believe the DNC really understands this. It is time for them to say outright that it is not going to unite behind nor cooperate with the Bush Adminstration. And I have heard some of our "leaders" suggest that we do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
76. So does Kerry or Clinton deserve "bashing" or "criticism" for this?
You keep arguing that they "deserve" to be criticized, but you don't respond to the issue the OP raised, which is whether they deserve "bashing"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. One wonders how you accumulated 1,000 posts
How did you hide it so long?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #34
48. Hide what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
78. Hide the way you switched "bashing" with "criticizing"
lizanelle complained of "bashing", and your non-responsive response has been to argue that it's OK to "criticize"

How much longer do you think you'll be able to continue substituting one for the other without anyone noticing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wurzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #78
102. Why bring up "bashing" at all?
Won't such a thread merely lead to more "bashing"? If you think a thread on Clinton or Kerry is "bashing" then push the alert button. That is what it is for. I have not merely argued that it is OK to criticize. I have tried to explain what that criticism is. That is what this Board is for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #102
120. Gee, funny how you just thought to ask about the question
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 04:45 PM by sangh0
I guess you were too busy trying to conflate "bashing" with "constructive criticism"

And again you avoid stating what YOU think the difference is between bashing and constructive criticism. Funny how your main point refers to this difference, but you won't explain how you view the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
29. I agree
We need to stay away from those threads bashing Democrats.


Now Zell Miller is another story letting him fade into retirement would be the order of the day. If Joe Lieberman joins the Bush administration that would be a disaster.

The Democratic Presidential contenders should all be hands off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. People who bash act as if the elections are fair and that votes are
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 10:57 AM by linazelle
actually being counted. Newsflash: votes are being trashed and stolen and it's neither Kerry's or Clinton's fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
42. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.
Clinton marked the beginning of the rush to the right of the democratic party, the betrayal of the principles of traditional liberalism, the movement of the party deeper into bed with business and further away from the people.

Not only did John Kerry run a weak campaign, and stand only marginally apart from Bush in international ideology, it is also the utterly failing politics of centrism, and me too-ism and trying to win by pandering to the conservative base that made the election close enough to steal.

You who are up in arms about the election fraud are missing the most important point. This president is one of the worst presidents in history. His record is abysmal, the economy has never fully recovered, he lost jobs as president, people are dying everywhere for his war based on lies, he cannot point to one single real success. The fact that the election was even close enough that it could be stolen is a testimony to how weak and fairly the right-wing democratic party actually is, how weak our presidential candidate selection really was, and how utterly messed up both parties are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. The fact that the Selection II was close enough to be stolen has nada to
do with Dem weaknesses and everything to do with media bias, polling biases and election theft. As for Kerry being a weak candidate, chalk that one up to the RW media too. Place the blame where it really belongs--not on Kerry or on Clinton, but on the theft of democracy by the right wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
49. I think it is healthy
Any and everyone of ou would vote for them again, but somehow a critical look at ourselves gets people called freeper and a lot worse.

Clinton won himslef, but left the party in far, far worse condition than he found it, kerry just lost.

Until we figure out what we are doing, we can not figure out what to change, and until we change course, we will continue to get what we are getting.

I am not willing to accept that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. Bullshit.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 11:56 AM by jefferson_dem
We should debate the direction of the party. And who is best to lead us there. No problem with that.

I am afraid that, in your short stint here, i've seen nothing but t rw-talking-point crititicsms of the party and its leaders. What you have offered so far IS NOT "healthy" in my opinion.

Maybe you could clarify EXACTLY what Clinton did to leave the party in such shambles as you have been perpetually ranting about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Dog Dem Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Okay, here goes
Good: he governed fro mthe middle, he took baby steps

Bad: his morals and he made the discussion about HIM, not the ISSUES.

If clinton had taken that unbelievable aboility to communicate and persuade and focused it on getting issues passed, he would have gotten massive parts of our agenda through. Instead we got a few crumbs, and a rock-star hero for a ex-president.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. I just don't understand two things about that perspective:
First, i don't see how one can celebrate the fact that he moved the the middle yet at the same time criticize him for not using his ability to get "our" issues passed. Naturally, moving to the center means fewer classic democratic policies become viable options. I am critical that he was TOO centist-leaning and not committed enough to the principles of the Left. But the reality was that he had to deal with a Repuke-led Congress since 1994. In the end, he behaved like a rational actor, rather than a principled leader. I preferred more of the latter.

Second, regarding "morals" -- sure, he is personally flawed, as we all are. However, the discussion became about HIM BECAUSE he was targeted for character-assasination from the get-go by the "vast right wing conspiracy." THEY made the discussion about him. And they were incredibly successful. That is irrefutable. It was clear to most of us then; it's crystal clear now. To claim otherwise is to deny history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #62
81. You are so very right jefferson...yet they (media, VRWC) like to try to
push the notion that Clinton is an attention hog--Peter Jennings did it the other night goading him about caring about his ranking at 41st in moral values of all presidents. 41st according to who is the question that should be asked. Instead the question asked what you really care that people think you are immoral don't you? Why not ask him when he stopped beating his wife instead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #49
68. Then how do you explain threads like this?
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 12:42 PM by sangh0
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

How is this healthy? How does accusing Kerry's aides of doing something they DID NOT DO, help us "figure out what to change"?

And if the thread was meant to help Kerry, why was there no acknowledgement by those who made the false claim, that they're claim was false?

And how about this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

How does "Kerry isn't going to do shit and you can count on that." help us "figure out what to change"?

If you think this is ALL attributable to a desire for "constructive" criticism, you haven't been paying attention


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vote4Kerry Donating Member (372 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
52. We should focus on fixing voting problems, not bashing
I am sick of all the people turning on Kerry too. Kerry is not the reason we lost this election. Companies like Diebold and people like Ken Blackwell are. We need to focus our energies not on bashing Kerry, but on fixing the voting process. Until we are able to hold elections in which we can get accurate and honest results of vote totals, we are all in trouble!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Amen. Fixing the voting problems and the media are the two biggest
jobs we face. Who can do that? Neither Clinton or Kerry alone or together. It will take years, it will take money and it will take a miracle and none of that reflect on Kerry or Clinton or the Dem party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
57. Yes, NAFTA, welfare "reform", and the Iraq war are great for Americans!
Stop being so ungrateful to the bipartisan coalitions that brought us such wonders!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. No, you forgot something...
We lost because of values, so we must abandon the few we have remaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. You're right! Principles offend the "moderates".
I left out "Daschle and Gephardt were strong oppostion leaders."

Probably enough to get me labeled a freeper.

One must toe the party line and participate in groupthink with the passion of a true believer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #59
69. hyperventilate much?
How many nonsensical non sequiturs will we have lined up while you are pretending to make a cogent argument?

You tell me: what is gained from savaging our own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. Depends on your perspective.
The knee-jerk party line rationalizations that "Clinton was great president.." and "We lost because of fraud.." are ostrichlike avoidance of the obvious.

As for what is gained from "savaging our own"..I see it as an attempt to get the ostriches to pull their head out of the sand and see what the Democratic Party has become. Namely, little more than a decrepit instution that is dying because of it's own willingness to abandon it's principles in the unfulfilled promise of winning by pandering.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Clinton WAS a great president and we DID lose because of fraud.
Why can't you deal with these realities?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. Perhaps because I disagree with your "realities".
"Clinton WAS a great president.." Your evaluation of what makes a "great" president differs from mine and is subjective. In my opinion he was mediocre at best, and subverted the Democratic Party in the process by moving it to the right.

"..we DID lose because of fraud." "Fraud" most certainly. That the election was bought and sold to the highest bidder by an electoral system that only responds to money, I agree. If, as I think you are, referring to "voter fraud", I disagree. There is some anecdotal evidence of such on both sides but I don't believe it amounts to much. But, get back to me when it's proven and the election is overturned and I will happily eat my words. I see the "voter fraud" outcry as a distraction from what really ails the Democratic Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. "I see the 'voter fraud' outcry as a distraction ..."
Only those who are separated from reality via brainwashing and propoganda see voter fraud as a "distraction."

As for Clinton being "mediocre", I'd like to know how you rate Bush in comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #88
101. Says who? You?
If "voter fraud" is "reality" how do explain John Kerry's reluctance to use the term or pursue the claim? Is he also "brainwashed" and suffering from an inability to see (your) "reality".

Clinton was a mediocre president (at best). Bush is a disaster and has managed to pull almost even with Reagan, Nixon, and Andrew Johnson as the worst presidents this country has had to endure.

If you are willing to look the other way while the "moderates" in the party lead it to and even more de facto merge with the Republicans and their capitalist masters in the name of "party loyalty" and quashing dissent then more power to you. But, do expect resistance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. And if Bush is a disaster then why spend so much time bashing Clinton
or Kerry? It's not their fault that the republicans are corrupt, lying, vote stealing thieves.

Funny how none of these words are remotely associated with Kerry or Clinton--they roll off the tongue for Bush--and yet all the bashing is targeted at them. Seems to me the bashing is misguided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. My "bashing" is directed at those who deserve it.
If you will look on other threads, you will see that I "bash" the boob-in-chief much more heartily than I do Clinton or Kerry (both of whom I voted for).

But, I'm much more concerned about the state of the world under attack by America than I am with Clinton's or Kerry's reputations.

The one force that can, at least, curtail some of that threat is the Democratic Party. Alas, it has been so eager to "win" elections that it has, instead of opposing Bush's actions, either endorsed or or accepted them as "popular" and therefore unassailable as a whole. "Welfare Reform", Nafta, No Child Left Behind, the IWR vote, etc. And, now Reid cozying up to Bush and calling for "bipartisanship".

I've been a Democrat for a long time. My nose is more than a little sore from voting for Democrats that continually sell out the principles that I believe in, in the name of "electability".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #101
121. then go out and win fucking elections rather than ...
tell us up with what you will not put.

:eyes:

There is no way that anonymous left wing sniping at a statesman can mean diddly shit to anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
63. Totally agree!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. There is a difference between healthy criticism and outright bashing
We don't have to glorify our leaders, but to turn on them is pointless ... it's only purpose seems to be to vindicate oneself from not having control over such a disappointing loss. I keep reading these "I never liked Kerry anyway" threads ... and it is frustrating and counterproductive. If you have legitimate gripes, by all means, express them! But be a bit thoughtful in the language you choose - otherwise it just becomes a great big "I told you so" and no one really wants to hear it. Offer opinions, suggestions, resolutions, but this nastiness really needs to go. Not everyone here is going to have the same ideals, but isn't that the beauty of it? I come here to learn and consider different points of view, but when the level of discourse disintegrates into finger pointing and name calling ... oh, and the condescension - eeek ... I seriously can't help but think "This is exactly what is wrong with our party". I just don't understand how people can be so fickle. I don't agree with Clinton or Kerry 100% - but just because I find a chink in their armor - doesn't mean I have to go for the kill.

Personally, I think Clinton is an interesting person who happens to be an amazing politician ... where Kerry is an amazing person who is at a bit of a disadvantage as a politician. They represent each of the ways I regard my leaders: One is a politician who happens to be a man, the other a man who happens to be a politician. This guides my expectations, but both types are necessary in the political system. Same with my senators - Arlen Specter (the career politician) who sometimes "blows in the wind", but is accomplished and best represents my interests (how sad) compared to Santorum, who has true conviction and really believes the shit he spouts. I detest Santorum's views, but I admire the fact that you know what you are getting. I'm never sure about Specter.

Back to the point. The bashing really does need to stop. We all have a place here - and I hope that we remain critical thinkers, but let us be careful not to bogged down in regret. We are progressives after all ... we need to quit the harping and look forward.

Thank you for the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #64
71. Thank you for the thoughtful post.
I too come here to learn and when I get hit in the face at every turn with bashing, from the front page no less, it gets to be annoying to say the least. Then when you look at the content of these bash threads you see they are usually populated with one or two people who play tag to keep them going thus keeping them on the front page. It's so obvious that there's more to the bashing than there appears to be at first glance IMHO.

There is room for disagreement, but not for contrived bashing. I don't have a solution for getting rid of the latter so, I just have to vent here and hope that it draws people away from the distractions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittLib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #71
96. Yep, there many here who like to incite ...
and an equal number who resort to bullying to make a point. There are those who make incredibly base arguments and those who argue at such a level that is difficult to keep up. We need, above all else, to respect each other ... and that means rising above the negative. Sometimes it is as simple as a slight change of tone. I guess I'm realizing that not everything here has to be a fight. Our biggest problem as a party, is that we do see shades of grey (our greatest asset) ... but sometimes we have to back up a bit and see the big picture. We're so busy arguing the details. We have a relatively common goal that spans the spectrum. That is what we should focus on. I don't know - it's like an impressionist painting ... each dot has importance and effects the whole, but if you stand too close for too long ... you're bound to miss the beauty of what is being created. Move a dot, and the whole picture changes.

I'm regressing, and probably off the subject. I'm just saying in my overly elaborate and tangential way ... that I'm with you. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GRLMGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
65. You and me both
I don't know why I go into those threads anyway. They just threaten me w/ a brain aneurysm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KnowerOfLogic Donating Member (841 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
83. ABB IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, bush sucks, but dems MUST offer rational, positive alternatives; and offer them with a messenger who is strong, credible, moral, and stands on PRINCIPLE, not on ABB. Until they do that, it really doesn't matter how loudly they scream about Bush. Oh and, until they get control of the voting process, nothing else matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. And that has what to do with Clinton/Kerry bashing?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #86
94. It's the "bashing" = "constructive criticism" fallacy
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
95. We can't change the republican party until the next election.
We can make changes to our own party now. Our leadership has failed in the last three major elections by pursuing some enigmatic "moderate" vote that never seems to materialize. It's time to fire the incompetent panderers and fucking stand up. Clinton started the DLC, and Kerry played their line. Fuck them both for steering us into loss yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. Not true
That kind of thinking would have made the anti-Viet Nam war protests irrelevant. History shows otherwise.

Even Nixon, in his memoirs, said that those protests prevented him from nuking North Viet Nam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #99
123. Actually, it was true...
Before we can protest effectively, we have to remove our ineffective leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
104. I agree. Primarily because they are not thoughtful.
Obviously, deconstructing why we didn't win this election is mandatory. Thoughtful, intelligent analysis of Kerry post-election is critical to our chances in 2008. I have been intrigued with the few intelligent critiques of how Clinton's Lewinsky/personal morality "problems" may have affected Kerry's chances for winning in 2004. It's something I hadn't thought about during the campaign.

Personally, I think Clinton is and always will be one of our Democratic heroes and legends. Just a glimpse of him on TV or in a photo, and I long with all of my heart for him to be our president again. It's an instantaneous feeling.

To me, John Kerry was a terrific candidate. I saw him on C-SPAN the other day speaking on the Senate floor and I was reminded all over again why I thought so - he is smart, knows the issues backwards and forward, is on the right side of all of the issues I hold dear (health care, children's issues, reproductive rights for children. the environment, etc.) - he has and always will be a champion for these causes, he is a moral and ethical man - not a blemish or stain on him. It's a travesty that Bush was able to make the flip-flop label stick and also tarnish his Viet Nam record. He effectively made this great man look small and ineffective in the mind of many voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
105. Then don't read them.
Seriously.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Actually you can't miss them because the perps who put them there
artificially feed them to keep them in your face. I've been seeing these threads for days and I'd like to read something else thankyouverymuch. As for you, if you don't like this thread, follow your own advice. Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. I suggest you read the DU boards yourself or even this thread.
There are some links within this one if you are really interested and not just here to be a smartass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. So you have nothing.
Edited on Sat Nov-20-04 02:34 PM by FubarFly
We've just lost the most important election in our lifetimes. I can't blame loyal, disheartened members for blowing off steam. A good amount of finger pointing, scapegoating, and soul searching should be expected.

I'm just not sure why you believe this behavior is "suspicious"?

I guess thats what jumped out at me at your original post. You're rallying against divisiveness by being- well, divisive. It seemed kind of silly to me, so I thought I'd call you out on it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #116
122. You make a good point
about how being divisive in order to halt the division is futile. Along those lines, what do you think about how you called her "a board nanny"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FubarFly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #122
128. It was possibly a bit excessive.
Although, if we weren't on DU, I might have said a whole lot worse.

My patience is frayed a lot these days. I'm only human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangh0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #128
130. We all are
and the hatred on DU is also excessive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
125. Spot on!
The combination of the infiltrators on the board, the tediously misinformed, and the self-appointed arbiters of all things social discourse makes for a whole pile of mighty mediocrity, with most diverted by whatever bright shiny object, or crowd-goading comment that floats by at any given moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
126. Post a LINK, please. And don't shout. Just post a link.
I see someone said there were links in the thread, but I am having trouble finding them.

Please post one.

I frequently criticize the DLC and its founders, including Clinton. They have allowed the corporations to rule our country because of their corporate funding....do you consider that bashing.

Please post some links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Link, please.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-20-04 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. Links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC