There is some truth in this post, I am sorry to say

[TayTay]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3070546&mesg_id=3071694

The attitude is a bit snotty and angry, but there are some truths in here, bitter as they are to realize. In any group, over time, there is a bit of drift. People can become so focused on what they see as a end that they forget that the means are important too!

I think this is a good time to just review a little bit, have a conversation about what works and what doesn't work when arguing online. I learned a long time ago that the number one thing you do when you sign up to work for someone in politics is protect that person's good name. It is not my name on the ballot, it's not my name that people will remember when they get angry because someone did something rude online, it's not my name that will be associated with the questionable behavior. I get to walk away, essentially with no cost to me. (Remember what happened at Christmastime for John Edwards and that silly WalMart story. Allegedly, some intern called WalMart and specifically used the Edwards name and status to get preferential treatment in a purchase. So, what was the name of the intern? Right, nobody else knows it. But they remember that person was associated with John Edwards.)

Can we talk about this? I am not blanket criticizing people in here. I know we are sinned against as well. But do you really want to become the thing you say you hate? Is that what you get out of this experience and your support for this person? If you post something, is it something that you think Sen. Kerry would either say or approve of? Life, as I have said many times, is unfair and that is doubly true for politics. I know that there are very unpleasant people out there that we deal with. However, is becoming like them the solution we really want?

[whometense]

1. I think you make an important point.

Let me preface by saying that I don't go "out there" much, and so I have no idea at all which posters this might apply to. One of the reasons I don't join in is it upsets me too much to hear all the lies. Politics is hardball, and I'm more the tea-and-cookies type, I'm afraid to say.

I can liken it to the way I felt (which I posted on a few weeks back) when I put my first Kerry for President bumper sticker on my car in 2003. My first thought was, "Well so much for driving like a Masshole." (not that I ever do, mind you ;-)) Because anyone I cut off would notice my sticker and generalize about the kind of people who support Kerry.

This also brought to mind that runin with idiocy we had on the Boston Phoenix blog a while back. We won someone over that time with our humor, our intelligence, and our command of the facts.

And there's a general desire out there to bring everyone down into the mud. It's important to remember that anything we say can and will be used against JK - any time, any place.

[TayTay]

2. Not a screed against anyone in particular.

I think that would be wrong and possibly hypocritical as well. The forums will have all of us, at one time or another, ready to just about kill someone. That is the nature of online debates, especially among Democrats.

But the point needs to be made, is this they type of thing we want to avoid? Okay, how do we do that? What kind of help do we need? Things like that.

[StoryTeller]

6. One thing I appreciate...

Is some of the statements Mass makes in our forum. Sometimes those statements are a little critical of Kerry, but they always seem to stem from an honest desire to get at the truth of something and see the best, most productive ideas come forward.

I think that's something we all could do better on. Sometimes I think maybe we get too defensive of Kerry and want to make every thing he does look perfect. Or convince people that every decision he makes is the absolute best and right one. It's easy to want to do that when there's other people who always seem to be waiting to pile on and disparage him.

But I think he'd be the first one to remind us that not only is he not perfect, but that other people have equally good ideas, too. And that there are even times when he might look back on something and wish he'd made a decision more like someone else. I mean, the guy IS human, after all. :)

And you know, everyone wants a chance to be right now and then. And when we are constantly on the defensive against anyone that says anything that might be construed as less-than-100%-positive about our guy, we tend to argue them into the ground. And they feel beat up, and they feel like they can't win. That we look at them and think they have no good ideas or valid points.

I've got plenty of experience with this--the evangelical Christian world is another bloody debate battle field. And I've made the mistake of winning at all costs--and it really does cost every single time. But when I remember to look at the person I'm arguing with as a REAL person, someone to be valued and respected, then it helps me temper my tongue and decide whether or not it's even TIME to debate.

Sometimes, people just want to be listened to and know that they are being heard. Sometimes people want factual, non-emotional information. Sometimes, people want to understand a certain point of view better and need to hear that point of view from someone who will still respect them even if they disagree. Our job is to figure out what each person needs and to do our best to see that they get it.

Others just really want to bait and argue and be pains in the ass. I try my best to avoid discussions with those sort of people because they aren't worth my time or effort. And if someone seems bent on disagreeing with me, I make sure I lay out my argument once, but I try not to keep hammering it home.

However, do balance the post that TayTay brought to our attention with other posts--from here or other discussion forums--that have expressed appreciation for the way Kerry supporters refrain from bashing other candidates and present their views with clarity and back them up with factual information. We can do better, but we have done a lot of good already. Don't be discouraged or upset.

[TayTay]

12. Thanks ST and I agree.

Mass has brought up points in here that have sparked some good debate and had the real advantage of getting people to go out and find out why Sen. Kerry voted on something the way he did. This happened on the Oman Trade deal, which, at first glance did not seem like something Kerry would support. We talked about it in here. Mass brought up some excellent points about why this was a bad treaty, on the merits and her view that Kerry should not have supported it. We had a discussion on the merits, which was a good thing. (And I think we learned something about votes and how there are almost no perfect pieces of legislation but that Senators have to vote on what is front of them whether they like it all or just parts of it. Sigh!)

There are disrupters out in the greater online political world. They will always be there. I agree with what you said when you noted that this might not be the audience we should be thinking of when we reply to posts. We might want to remember that we are also talking to a larger audience who is turned off by pie fights and tends to tune out of them.

I also see no reason not to publicly say when you have disagreed with Sen. Kerry on something. It makes you honest to do so. (I have had disagreements with him on the Oman vote, on the vote to keep Radio Marti in Cuba and some other things.) This doesn't make me disloyal, it means that I think about my support and take it seriously.

Again, there are complaints about how bad some people 'out there' are. Agreed. I just don't want to become like them. That's not why I'm here and not why I support the good people I support.

[Mass]

3. We agree.

I know that I stopped considering Dean in 2003 largely because of his supporters and their agressivity and their denial of who Dean was.

This thread seems a denial of the fact Kerry has been at a time a DLC member. Sorry, he has been. We can argue that the DLC created by Al Gore was not the same that he is now. We can argue a lot of things, including the fact that some people very admired on DU are members of the DLC. But, we cannot with a straight face, argue that he was never a member. (and probably not argue with certainty he is no more a member, given that the DLC memberlist is obsolete).

I think that many of the threads I have seen that look bad are threads where people are trying to go too far on an argument that could be arguably not correct, or people who try to support Kerry without considering where the person comes from. And yes, these threads do not look good.

I know I have been guilty of that, and I have also noticed that, when somebody does not agree with Kerry, the rethoric can become agressive fairly quickly. This is not pleasant and this does not make Kerry any more likeable.

[ProSense]

5. I might be arguing that point

but the OP says nothing about Kerry not being DLC, it was a rebuttal to the Huffington post. Kerry, in fact, does not support their agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3070546&mesg_id=3072286

I'm not in denial that Kerry has worked with the DLC:

http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=181571

http://www.lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=208860&&

That his 2004 campaign was designed to promote the DLC agenda is false.

[Mass]

8. I was not talking about YOU, but the thread in general.

Several people argued that Kerry was NOT DLC, and the post TayTay referenced is in a sub-thread arguing on whether Kerry was DLC or not.

AS for whether Kerry supports the DLC agenda or not is a different issue, but very few people argued that as an answer to your thread.

[sandnsea]

9. I agree with you

The entire Hillary campaign agenda thus far has been to destroy Kerry. Reinventing his campaign as DLC is an attempt to stifle criticism of her by the more reasonable Kerry supporters, and reinvent herself at the same time. I just heard McAuliffe mouthing the same words Kerry used in 2004 regarding his vote, and pretending Hillary has been leading against the war and Bush all along. That entire thread is an attempt to muddle the truth of the DLC agenda and Hillary's connection to it. Whatever the DLC once was or was intended to be, Gore and Kerry haven't been in agreement with them for quite some time. I think it would be foolish to concede an inch in that direction.

[wisteria]

13. Absolutely correct. Even if he was a member at one time he was never leadership,

unlike Hillary.

[karynnj]

23. You also have the Des Moines Register article

placing Kerry (by the description) as the least anti- war. What they see is what the BG pointed out in Oct Kerry has led and is very well positioned. However, we all know he got little press on most things - and now others are trying BOTH to take that spot (which is fair) and to have their media friends remove Kerry from that spot and move him elsewhere (which is not fair).

[MH1]

7. Also in agreement. The thing with DLC, we have to be clear

that we mean that Kerry is not "DLC" according to the meaning attributed on DU (i.e. corporatist) - but not deny that he is a member. (Unless of course someone has a link where he asked them to not consider him a member anymore).

Endless pissing contests about something unprovable won't help us (or Kerry) much, I am afraid.

[Blaukraut]

4. point taken, Tay

Overall, I agree that we need to think about how we want to represent John Kerry. The only problem I have is with the originator of the criticism, because it would be wise of the person to take her own advice.
That said, yes - we need to have a conversation about what works and what doesn't. Thankfully, we pretty much know who and what we're up against. Learning how to deal with it is another story :-)

[emulatorloo]

10. I try to rebut sources and allegations and not make it personal

but at least in the latest incident I was involved in, it doesn't matter sometimes.

OTOH my writing style was more complex and articulate in '04 than it is now. At some point I got ill in 05, and I was worn down by the amazing negativity hurled at JK after the election So I tend to be more blunt now, which is probably a bad idea.

I think my best bet may be to go back to lurking. . .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. It is weird -- I don't really accept the characterization as a "Kerry Supporter" when it is hurled at me. Quite honestly I am ambivalent about Kerry running again in '08. (I think no one out there would make a better President.) But I get really frustrated when any dem is lied about and will post about it, and I have tried to make it a point not to post negative stuff about Dems (other than Lieberman, and he ain't a dem any more).

[wisteria]

11. Well, I am a customer service manager and I believe I know how to treat people and

represent others fairly. I have issues with some detractors, but they are on my ignore list. I went over the line one time and apologized to that person privately. And, I think most of us defend Senator Kerry with facts and links.
We have had people complain about this before. They figure we are ganging up on them, but usually it come from those who claim things about the senator without presenting any facts.
So, without examples, I really don't see where this is coming from.

Hillary is an exception for me and she will remain so. Although, I have toned down my comments limiting them too facts. As for other candidates, I stay away from the urge to go in and bash. Why even feign interest and up the views.better to ignore them. Now if posters can't figure out on this board that I speak for myself and not the senator than they are, well thick. Maybe I misunderstood what the DU was, I thought it was and exchange of opinions and ideas. This forum and its members are not hired by or supported by Senator Kerry. He has no interest in this forum or the DU.

It isn't our fault there are more of us them them.

[TayTay]

15. Agreed Wisteria

And this thread is not personally meant to anyone, not you, not anyone else who has posted in it. If I was to make accusations, I would have to soul-search and make them first against myself, as I have been guilty of this on more than a few occasions.

But the greater point is not that any one person was guilty. That is a worthless discussion. We all feel the need sometimes to respond harshly and to give back as good as we get. This is, after all, a collection of human beings and that's what human beings do.

The greater point is not to accuse someone of bad behavior in one specific incident. (Again, that is worthless.) It is to ask again how do we do it better? We have each posted online in threads and gotten good and bad responses. What triggered each? If the majority of bad responses were from 'prickly pear' personalities, then there isn't much we can do about it. But if there are times when the points are being laid on a little too thick, then maybe there is something we can do about it and make it better.

That is the point of my posting this. Everyone here writes online and has some experience with getting good and bad feedback. Okay, I'm asking then, what works and what doesn't, in your experience? How do we make it better? Tell me some stuff from your experience.

[wisteria]

19. Well, since you asked.

Anger is never appropriate. Some people are just looking for a fight.Personal derogatory comments are off limits. It is never a good idea to insult someones intelligence or question their mental health.
Listen and treat the person with respect even if you disagree with them. Hear them out, at least they know you were willing to listen. Find something positive to say about their POV. Then attempt to make your point presenting it with the proof to back it up. Sometimes it is better to just leave it at agreeing to disagree.

There is something to that saying that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar.
And, sometimes you have to size up the situation and know it is better to just let it go or walk away. In other words here at DU put them on ignore.

Obviously, I do not always follow my own advice and I am guilty of taking my job frustration out on DU posters once in a great while.
However, Senator Kerry is deserving of the best representation so I will pledge to try and contain myself on DU.

[TayTay]

29. That is a wonderful list, thank you for posting it.

It is concise, clear and to the point. I am going to print it out and keep it near my computer when I post. Seriously, those are excellent points to consider when posting.

Again, thanks for that. Experience is the best teacher I guess.

[ProSense]

14. I understand what you're saying, but

what does that response have to do with the OP? The OP is not about whether or not Kerry is DLC, so what we have here are few (three) disrupter's who insist on saying he is, instead of responding to the distortions in the OP with a reasonable response. When that fails, they resort to the broad brush accusations against Kerry supporters. I call it BS and an attempt to cut off criticism of Hillary Clinton. She is fair game like all the other Democrats, including Kerry.

I frankly think that response should be alerted on, and I will do so.

[TayTay]

16. The DLC discussion is a trap

It is a means to peg a person by a group association that has known connotations to people. In the liberal web, DLC is code for 'not progressive' or 'not liberal' enough. Use of the term "DLC" on DU is a way to say that Kerry is not who he says he is, and is not a true Democrat. (At least in some quarters and among some people here.)

This argument is a trap. It is meant as shorthand, not to extend debate but to close it down. "Oh, he's DLC. End of story." Perhaps the way to get around that is to discuss the DLC issues and see where Kerry would agree and where he would not. The Senator was for Welfare Reform, it was a part of his original agenda when he first ran for Congress in 1972. He is for fiscal accountability and believes strongly in balancing a budget and paying for programs, not puttting them into the deficit. There is also the tricky question of trade treaties and what the Senator's record is on that.

The point is not that anyone was bad in bringing this up. (That is a worthless discussion. It was not bad to bring this up, of course not.) But what is the nature of the argument itself, on the merits, what is going on when this comes up, what are the usualy responses, what do they mean and what agendas come into play when it comes up and how is it discussed best? That is what I meant. There are people out there who want to shut down discussion with these 'code words' discussions. Can we learn from that, learn how not to get into the trap and become better advocates when this sort of thing comes up? That is what I meant, not, someone was bad, which would be a dumb discussion. (And the opposite of what I meant.)

[sandnsea]

20. Welfare Reform was 15 years ago

Or something like that. Has nothing to do with today and the fact that Hillary still supports moving the country and world in a direction that favors the haves over the have nots. Her comment about being raised middle class goes directly to the disconnect with how the majority of people really live in this country. I'll give another example. Yesterday on Oprah they had a program about getting out of debt. Of the 3 families I caught, their household incomes were $80,000, $92,000 and $105,000. WTF?? The one family sold 2 of their 4 cars to pay down some debt. Another took a big chunk out of their house. What moron couldn't figure that out? That's not reflective of the real financial crises people face. That's what Hillary and DLC types remind me of. That's what is reflected in Elizabeth Edwards' comment about 'service workers', along with the stunning reality that most people in this forum don't even know any 'service workrs'.

Yes Kerry supported the welfare reform bill because there was some good stuff in there for working moms, mostly disconnecting the benefits so a mom could get help while she worked. He also supported trade in an attempt to get some investment money flowing into third world economies to lift the standard of living around the globe, alleviate poverty. Clinton is also the one that added the environmental and labor side agreements, which Bush isn't enforcing. If you want to talk about DLC and why Clinton did some of the things he did, at least understand it from the perspctive of those it affected. At the same time, Kerry seems to be willing to recognize the negative ramifications while the Clintons continue to run around with their head in the clouds because they're still targeting the suburban soccer mom and liberal city elites.

I am sorry, but this is just all looking pretty bleak from where I sit. The field is full of candidates who aren't going to make a spit of difference in the lives of at least 50% of the country or in the direction of our foreign policy which means poverty and upheaval for generations to come.

[ProSense]

21. It is a trap, but

if the OP was about the DLC for the sake of talking about the DLC, it would be pointless. There are a lot of traps---the IWR, just about any point used to attack any of the candidates. The post was more about the distortion and the disrupter's latched on. They do this in positive threads about Kerry and other candidates too.

There is always something to learn, but I guess my point is this is nothing unusual. The post you linked to is simply a nasty (very nasty) attempt to cut of debate. That post is also against DU rules.

[blm]

22. I always choose to deal with DLC issue with the truth - he's furthest LEFT of the DLC

and his voting record reflects that. He is also much further left than many senators who are NOT members of the DLC.

I am GLAD that there is a good lefty involved with the DLC, because undergod knows how much further right they would be by now if there were NO left voices to add to the mix.

[MH1]

24. The post Tay linked to is a bit over the top, but it raises good points.

In fact, that poster's behavior downthread certainly shows him/her to be a huge hypocrite. Fine, I know who s/he is now, and I won't fall for any more "just trying to get along" b.s.

But, the idea that people can get turned off to a candidate by the way their supporters act, is not unrealistic. Frankly it's not how I measure a candidate, but I do believe that a big portion of the electorate is that shallow.

There are some people who will feign offense no matter what, and I think there are some on that thread. Still, if there is anyway that their feigned offense can be taken seriously by a lurker, then imo, there is room for improvement on our part.

[karynnj]

27. well some Clinton supporters reflect badly on her

It goes that way too. I also disagree that our affect has been negative. Compared to 2 years ago, Kerry would do better here on two questions; Is Kerry a good man? & Is Kerry a good Senator or statesman? That is a major change and it IS important and significant.

[MH1]

37. Yes, I agree on both counts.

Overall, our effect certainly hasn't been negative. (that part was definitely over the top) But of course, it is something to watch out for in individual cases, so that our overall effect can be even more positive than it already is.

And some Clinton supporters absolutely do reflect badly on her. Except, I would not judge her by her supporters. But that's me - others will.

[karynnj]

42. I agree - it's good to periodicly step away and look at things we

are doing. I really don't think anyone really judges the candidate based on the likability of people on the boards. This was an old AK saw too. What it would do is diminish our own credibility which diminishes our ability to advocate for Kerry. It first and foremost plays on ourvalues. There is no one hear who has not been drawn here at least partially by all of the Senator's real values. (It would be fun to ask if the reason she doesn't hold Clinton followers to the same standards is that they are held to Clinton's standards and we are held to Kerry's)

In some ways, our function is different from that of the Edwards, Clinton and Obama supporters. They all have parts of the media cheering for their candidate. We have very very few people who are even playing fair. (The Des Moines Register is a good example). We need to get what Kerry actually does or stands for known.

This person feels no need to make a case for Hillary. She states, in post after post, two things that she demands EVERYONE accept as givens:
- That ONLY Clinton can win (Not true - 2008 looks to be an easy year for Democrats)
- That Clinton was an excellent President.

Those are treated as truisms that cannot be challanged. That does not lead to a fair assessment nor to real discussion.

[karynnj]

26. The problem is that the HP article is garbage even if you replace

Kerry with Hillary.

The logic he uses is:

Kerry is DLC

THe DLC believes (.....)

Therefore Kerry believes (....)

Now substitute Hillary for Kerry - the piece is still garbage, even though the first point is now completely true.
The problem lies with the second two points. Number 2 is NOT a description of the beliefs of the DLC. Additionally, DLC members do not vote that mechanicly based on some set of special DLC rules known only to this guy. It is a pretty loose asociation - that seems to not even have updated membership lists.

Being on DU, it is easy to ignore the problem with 2 because there are so many who have demonized the DLC, all the while praising Gore, Clinton, Edwards or Dean. (or in some cases, Kerry). Do you seriously thing that if you took the things he assigned to DLC (that were then by inference Kerry) to known DLC members they would agree with it?

[ProSense]

32. The DLC has had a slew of problems

not the least of which is keeping the facts straight. Al From is a snake.

[TayTay]

36. Exactly. This is a premise based on a logical fallacy.

I have highly recommended this website before and I do so now: http://thenonsequitur.com/?page_id=167

This website goes through OpEd and prominent articles in the news and picks them apart on the basis of the arguments made. A favorite target of the website is George Will, who is easy pickings since so many of his articles are based on weak arguments.

This is not a content-heavy site, but I wholeheartedly recommend that you go there and see how people put these weak arguments together and make them seem rational. The same forces are at work at DU. In the postings that I used in the OP we have:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: claiming that the absence of a clear answer to a question implies either an affirmative or negative answer (and not simply ignorance about the right answer)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: claiming that simply because one fact follows another that the preceding event or fact is the cause.

Ad hominem circumstantial: claiming that one only holds an opposing position because of vanity, self-interest, or other similar causes of bias.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people): the direct or indirect appeal to the perceptions or impressions of a group of people as support for the truth of one’s conclusion.

I am not trying to turn everyone into wonks here. But looking at how an argument is constructed and what goes into it, why it does or does not work, is worth it. It can give you a better way to diffuse it, because you can identify the weak points in it, the places where the logic of the argument is built on sand.

Just a perusal of some of the articles at this site would be well worth your time. They are short as well. Honest. Karynnj is right above, the very foundation of this argument used is weak and a fallacy. Check it out. (Painlessly, at sites like the one I referenced above.)

[Democrafty]

17. Yes, let's talk about this.

There's a certain standard for what level of harshness, vulgarity, etc. will fly on DU. It's not all that high. Which is actually ok with me as an individual, thick-skinned, serial profaner that I am.

However, as a JK supporter, I really try not to take what's de rigeur on DU as some kind of prescription for how I should be talking about the senator. Given the incredible kindness and generosity JK, THK, and their families and staff have shown a lot of us, I personally feel like I should be a good ambassador, and emulate their gracious and highly professional behavior, on DU, or wherever.

To be really, really frank, I look at JK's Democratic detractors in the political arena, away from DU (and we all know who they are), and I feel that, if JK were acting the way they were, I wouldn't like him nearly as much.

So there are real reasons that we should all try to stay cool, stay out of Kerrycrat-baiting threads, and stop using "s/he started it!" as an excuse for our behavior.

[Firespirit]

18. I consider the lurkers

I don't like posting out there; I have an unfortunate tendency to give away too much and raise suspicions about myself that I've later had to deflect. But sometimes I can't stop myself. When I post, I think more about how it would play with the lurkers, who may be undecided. People like that one person who said, on the "Kerry copied Gore" brouhaha, that the JK supporters were impressing him.

I don't worry about the JK haters of the world and generally don't tailor my posts to not offend them, because they can't be won over. I think that the lurkers would be impressed by a strong command of the facts, and strong fighting for our guy. The negative effect of the Anyone But Bush movement in 2004 cannot be understimated. We need to be seen as FOR Kerry.

[karynnj]

25. I agree and disagree

Agree: We do reflect on Kerry and we can learn from his incredible ability to be a kind, generous, big hearted person in an environment where he knows his actions will not be returned in kind. It may be that he knows the type of person he wants to be - and that is the very classy person we admire greatly. As we admire that, there are times where we can step back and consider if we want to pile on any attacks. I think it is true hat we aren't the ones starting any of the hate threads.

Reading the linked post, I think where I might be guilty is going into threads attacking Kerry and not just defending Kerry, but attacking the candidate associated with the attack. The former is valid, the latter isn't and thinking of the first paragraph, I think I can do better. Some issues are tricky though - because the Kerry attack places their candidate above Kerry on some issue
consider:

1) Kerry will be swiftboated again, but there is nothing left that can be thrown at the Clintons.
(The opposite is more likely true IMHO)
2) Kerry lost an easy race, Clinton would have won. (variation Edwards, Dean, Cookie Monster... would have won) (very hard to do without laying out differences - conceding it is not helpful either.
3) Kerry didn't fight back, Clinton would have. (How do you explain the differences without rehashing 1992) Isn't it necessary to seperate fact and myth that grew over time.

This is ignoring that in the last 3 months there has been an increase in the public Kerry bashing from well known people surrounding Clinton. If we, independent Kerry supporters reflect on Kerry. have the Clinton people, in even ONE post, said something like, "(Clinton team member) reflects badly on Clinton?" I haven't. These are paid employees of Hillary(McAuliffe etc) - we are NOT Kerry employees. (In fact someone has to counter the sentence there which implies we are. (I can't because of my block list)

I very recently realized that in terms of 2008 candidate, my discussions with some Clinton supporters were irresolvable - I would be saying what I admire in Kerry (positions and Character) - they would concede that he is good on both, but only Clinton can win. I can see that further arguments on this are useless because there is nothing to argue. It all comes down to a belief where truth can not be known.

If Clinton is the only one who can win, than I get their point - rather Hillary, than a Republican. My problem is that I don't buy the premise. My premise is the Democrat who gets this nomination has an extraordinary chance to be President. If my premise is right, why not the best? As we get closer to 2008, both are premises may be easier to evaluate - at this point we won't agree. I also do not concede that in a general election, Hillary would do better - I simply don't think this is true.



-

[StoryTeller]

28. When your starting point is different...

It is really hard to have a reasoned discussion. As you say, it does come down to a matter of belief. Their starting premise is basically that JK can't possibly win. That's not a position based on fact. It's a belief. It's even indicative of an entire belief system. You can't change that with all the best arguments in the world.

I think Tay's question was how best to handle this sort of belief system, without ending up brow-beating a fellow Democrat and human being in the process.

For me, when I run up against an immovable belief system, I figure I have a few choices. I can try to argue--which I can do, but it doesn't promote good relationships with people. Or I can listen and try to at least understand and show appreciation for the other person's beliefs--as Vek did in that fabulous listening thread. Or I can respond with a belief system of my own.

I usually try to opt for a combination of the second and third options. So, for example, to a person whose belief system is that JK may be a decent fellow, but he just can't win, I'd probably respond,

"Well, nobody knows for sure what will happen. I do respect and understand your concerns--I can see some validity in them. I guess for me, I'm willing to see him take the risk because I believe in what he stands for. And I'd rather be true to my own standards and convictions even if it means supporting someone who ends up losing. Maybe that's idealistic. And I can understand why others would choose not to take such a stand, out of concern that idealism could result in another republican president. But we need a mix of both idealistic and pragmatic people--both our approaches to life are important. Let's just see what happens, okay?"

I mean it--I am a bit idealistic. In fact, it might be idealistic to think this sort of approach would even help. But I just can't see trying to argue with someone whose basic premise is opposite of mine.

[emulatorloo]

30. somehow I missed the implication re being hired by Kerry's office to post

on DU == that is a pretty nasty accusation and worth alerting on -- too bad I feel like I have used up my alerting quota in the last couple days.

[StoryTeller]

31. we have an alerting quota?

I didn't realize that. What is it?

[emulatorloo]

33. Not really. But I have been burning up the alert button recently

And I feel like the mods are saying -- OH CRAP NOT EMULATORLOO AGAIN.

[StoryTeller]

34. LOL! I see.

I haven't been feeling well today--my ability to get a joke is obviously been impaired as well. :)

[europegirl4jfk]

35. Honestly, I don't understand what's going on

I'm sorry but I will never "get" these Primary Wars. Sure, everybody can have his favorite candidate and is entitled to defend his positions. But these endless arguments on DU between supporters of different candidates are ridiculous and getting on my nerves. These attacks often are so venomous, how will these people be able to come together again to support the nominee, whoever he/she will be? Until now I thought that the Republicans are the "enemies", not other Democrats. Perhaps the whole system how the nominee is chosen, as democratic as it may be, is not very healthy. Or perhaps it's just me and I'm too European for that. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

38. Very different views of the world

Perhaps it's more urgent here because we don't have health care, mom's allowances, college education, etc. Not every Democrat will support those items in the same manner, some in such a manner so as not to be a real benefit at all. Kick in global trade and loss of manufacturing jobs, immigration and loss of manual labor jobs, corporate exec pay, and you get another layer of issues people care deeply about. Then there's the environment from global warming to shrinking fisheries to forests to contaminated water, and Bill Clinton wasn't the greatest on any of that either. Some of these Democrats tend to nibble at the edges, some are like Lieberman, some we just don't know. But it is very overwhelming and critical to get the right person in the office. And we haven't even mentioned Iraq or terrorism and who will truly work to end the war and who will put winning a second term ahead of bringing the troops home. Lots of pent up emotion behind the primary wars.

[wildflowergardener]

40. primaries

I was not on the board during the primaries last time, so was not aware what it was like. I was near the election - and I was shocked at all the hate directed at Senator Kerry after the election - all the people say he wasn't my choice anyway, and such.

That is one thing I've haven't liked a bit - was the tendency for the democratic party to turn on people once they lose an election - at least what I saw after the last one.

I'll admit to being upset at first about Senator Kerry's decision not to fight the election results - but accepted it after awhile. It is hard, when you want so much for someone to win. I was so depressed after that election - wondering what was going to happen to the world after Kerry lost.

This is why it was such a relief, last November - that finally we could do something about what people have done.

I do think the primaries are kind of bad in that everyone is attacking each other, and then suddenly after the nominee is chosen people are supposed to all support them. I don't know if there was a better way, but Howard Dean was saying tonight on Air America Radio, that they are going to try to keep the primaries more positive and concentrate on the Republicans more. We'll see.

Meg

[wildflowergardener]

39. post

I think when people are so quick to jump on anything positive anyone has to say about Kerry, it is hard not to get defensive after awhile.

That's why I don't really post much elsewhere in those arguementative threads. I don't care much for conflict.

I certainly don't agree with the notion that Senator Kerry should be coming onto the board and telling his supporters posting on the board what they should and should not post. What ever happened to free speech?

Meg

[_dynamicdems]

41. The best lies contain a little truth.

This individual used the fact that there are a few bashers who have gotten a righteous smackdown on more than one occasion and have their noses out of joint. He's capitalizing on this feeling of victimization by the victimizers. Smart, but very transparent. He or she is generalizing about "Kerry supporters" when he probably hasn't even encountered more than a small percentage of the total group of Kerry supporters who post and peruse at DU.

He also states that Kerry supporters don't use facts to back up what they say! Has this dude ever encountered a ProSense post?!!!

And I didn't like the way this person tried to imply that people who post on public boards in support of a candidate are the same as the hired staffers. That's bullshit.

As far as flaring tempers go, if you start a fight you have no right to whine about the bloody nose you get when you lose. In other words: Kerry supporters defend but they don't start preemptive flame wars. You don't see any of us going into a pro-Clark thread to say Clark is a "flip-flopper" or that we will never vote for Clark because he had his chance in 2004.

I had to respond to this person's post because I'm afraid people might believe the nonsense. This is nothing more than a swiftboating attempt directed at Kerry supporters. Clever but hardly original.

[Mass]

43. It is sometimes particularly hard. I found an idiot today who is

saying that Kerry annulling his wedding is a sign we cannot count on him. God, it is hard to remain calm in front of that.:mad:

[beachmom]

44. I saw that. That was a low, low blow, and I thought you handled it

well. Especially since we know the story behind the divorce, which was very painful. My problem is with the Catholic Church, not Kerry. Their rules are out of step with the times, and don't stop marriages from breaking up. Then they black ball you if you get divorced.

[wisteria]

45. I saw that two, he has posted the same thing before and I answered similar to you.

I don't think he is willing to listen to reason. He is just looking for excuses not to like Senator Kerry.

[MH1]

46. Guess he isn't a Feingold supporter either.

And there's probably a good percentage of potential leaders he can't support, on that basis. I don't keep a list though. I only know Feingold because it's been mentioned so much.

[Mass]

47. His beef is not with divorce, but with annulment!

I do not think there is such a thing as annulment in the Jewish religion.