The closer we get to indictments, the more attacks here on the Democrats.

[madfloridian]

All of them. Those who are really caring and trying, and those who have stood up for us all along.

The "I got a call from the DNC" posts, and the ones saying they got calls from progressive groups...and turned them down.....are the same as saying you are against us.

The worst part are the threads by people who should know better. They should know the different sections of the party, like the DNC (the official party itself), the DLC (a pro-corporate think tank), and the House and Senate groups which get donations for candidates they usually pick...the DSCC and DCCC.

It leaves a bad feeling.

[mmonk]

1. and some is just healthy criticism

[madfloridian]

3. I am all for healthy criticism. I do a lot of it.

I just think it is out of proportion at times here. It is almost like an anti-Democratic party place at times.

I don't agree with any of the Democrats on every issue, and last year I thought about a third party. There is a difference between healthy criticism, and character assassination of good people.

Kerry was bashed here yesterday, though he gave a great speech. Hillary can no way be as horrible as this board makes her out to be. Nearly all of our Democrats are fair game now.

[Jacobin]

2. Yes, that's true. I think I know why

The indictments are about the failed attempt to invade and occupy Iraq. There can be no doubt at all, that if WMDs had been found, or if they had 'welcomed us' and things were going swimmingly, that there would be no grand jury.

Nothing succeeds like success.

The pain of having our standard bearer in 2004 having bit into the Chump's war mantra, and the pain of watching him try to parse his way out of it is almost unbearable for me, particularly since soooo many of us tried soooo hard by faxes, emails, calls and letters to him and to other congresscritters before the IWR vote.

It's all coming together now in a painful way, with the deaths of the 2000 plus and knowing that so many dems enabled this foolish foolish adventure and are now trying to distance themselves from it....clumsily.

I'll admit I've been doing some bashing. They deserve that and more.

[madfloridian]

4. Well, look at it this way.

We have as chairman of the party a guy who opposed the invasion as a morally wrong thing. Yet there are so many posts here, one after the other about withholding support from the party itself.

And there is a backlash now against those who advocate supporting the DNC and trying to change it rather than just giving up.

[Jacobin]

6. That's fine we me

I was and still am a Dean supporter and he get his share of bashing here.

We desperately need to have some reality based dems back on the front lines who are not afraid to deal with reality whether its popular to be delusional about foreign policy and other matters or not.

I think the public is ready for some realism in politics. I know I am.

[madfloridian]

9. Reality based is one thing.

Realism is a good thing. The trouble is that many now do not seem to recognize what is reality and what is tearing down our best bet in organizing for 06 and 08.

[karynnj]

8. In complete fairness, the head of the DNC

if he would have had to vote in Oct 2002, would also have voted for a resolution. As he is not in Congress - the fair thing to do is look at his public statements of the time. In 2002 - early 2003, he was if anything LESS concerned about the possiblity of war than John Kerry.

[madfloridian]

10. You are making a huge assumption. In complete fairness.

I have the full interview, and people keep quoting one line. He was speaking hypothetically. He always made clear he was not anti-war, anyway. Just anti-this war because it was not proven info.

Besides I have noticed that blaming him and withholding support from the DNC because others voted for it, seems to be in fashion here.

Go figure. The sad part of all of this is that the progressives in the party are going to destroy this rebuilding as surely as the right wing of the GOP hurt their own party.

And they are using a Democratic forum to do it.

[mmonk]

5. I guess I'm not of the Wilsonian democrat mold

but more of founding fathers mold when it comes to security, rights, and war.

[progressivejazz]

7. Well, I got a call from the DNC.

And ranted on about their lily-livered behavior. The caller pointed out that Dean is the chairman and is not lily-livered. She also mentioned that criticism has to be timed properly to be effective.

On further reflection I realized Dems have been speaking out but those who speak out, like Dean, have been marginalized by the corporate media and some of the speaking out by others just hasn't been covered by the same media.

End result, I sent the DNC a donation.

[TahitiNut]

11. They're sapping our vital juices ... our purity of essence!

This kind of 'discussion' thread is doomed to fail any test of logical validity or achieve any greater insight, lacking the willingness/ability to cite specifics and factual grounds (circumscribed by DU rules against personal attacks). It is no more valid to claim some aggregate "people who should know better" than to attack an individual poster as "not knowing better."

If anything invites "more attacks here on the Democrats" it's the clay-footed delusion that any political party can gain broader support by embracing the wishy-washy, "just a little bit pregnant," no-mans-land "middleground."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... :shrug: