Wrong.....a Democrat's campaign forum advocating Dean attacks.

[madfloridian]

I have been looking around whenever certain topics rear their heads. Last night I posted from another campaign about "google-bombing", which I happened upon accidentally. However it was being advocated by a few on the forum of another Democratic candidate. I see it being tried here today.

I am looking at the Dean forum, and checking through the blog's there as well. Why? Not just to be ugly, but because I hope I don't find posts advocating negativity against another candidate. It is just wrong.

I did find this on a forum.....and thankfully folks had already
stepped in to be moderate voices for sanity. That is good.

http://forum.johnkerry.com//index.php?showtopic=987

SNIP..."The wisdom of campaign practitioners is that nothing but NEGATIVE MESSAGES regarding the Howard Dean candidacy can change the present dynamic of the campaign.

The positive public support for Dean cannot be changed without contrary negative information being put before the public.

Academic research is more nuanced regarding the effects of Negative Political Advertising. I include some citations below:

Gina Garramone et. al. in "Effects of Negative Political Advertising on the Political Process," (Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,1990 ) asserted that negative ads are very effective when differentiating or discriminating candidates' images....."MORE

Yep, that's politics. It is easy to make fun of those of us who are not hardened politicos, who support Dean because it finally matters to us to get involved. We already know for sure that he has his faults, that we will not agree with everything he says or does, but that would be true with any candidate.

Shame on us for destroying ourselves.

[Eloriel]

1. On the Dean blog

All I ever see are:

* a few negative posts about Dean (trolls), which usually feeds the Troll Goal (gets Dean more money)

* occasional news items or comments about other candidates

* even less often (cause it's mostly unnecessary), remonstrances to NOT go to other candidates' blogs to troll

* the overwhelming proportion is focused on Dean, his campaign, his performances and appearances, grassroots campaigning, etc.

Nothing like what you describe would be tolerated on the Dean blog. I can't say I'm surprised. But I am deeply saddened that the Kerry campaign would allow this, in any form. Edited: I see that you said other voices had stepped in. Good. I',m thinking that post should be removed though.

"Politics as usual," indeed -- demonstrating in blazing stark relief why Dean and his campaign are different, and esp., as you point out, why Dean is attracting so many formerly disgusted voters.

Eloriel

[w13rd0]

2. That's my thinking...

...negative campaigning has worked in the past, but I don't want to operate in past paradigms. Operating in past paradigms has been a losing proposition for us. Increasingly, we've been relinquishing the power of WE THE PEOPLE in favor of delagating that power to corporate special interests and entrenched power brokers. I'm not going to play ball with a group of people that have, time and again, published rule books for playing that they have no intention of abiding by. Look at Ed Gillespie, head of an organization that has specialized in negative attacks, fear mongering, division...calling US hateful...

[madfloridian]

5. Negative campaigning should be used by the other party, not our own.

That is what bothers me the most. I know it will be used, but it bothers me.

[janx]

3. What's "google bombing" ?

?

[madfloridian]

4. There is an explanation here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=841466