Deaniacs, Kerrycrats, Clarkies, Kucitizens, et al does this happen to you?

[LittleClarkie]

We each know our chosen dude or dudette pretty well, wouldn't you say? Well enough to notice nuances, well enough to understand where they are coming from most of the time etc? We see stuff other people don't see, in other words. How frustrated do you get when others don't see what you see, and don't even get it when you try to explain?

Sometimes I wish that people would stop calling us apologists for our chosen dude or dudette, and just listen with an open mind. Because we've been paying attention to whoever it is, and I should think we all pretty much know what we're talking about, you know?

I mean, if a Dean person told me that a speech he just gave was special because he'd never said something quite that way, or that it sigified a change for him, I think I'd listen.

Or is that kind of naive? Hell, is it even clear what I'm getting at? I've had this experience with Kerry, and it occured to me a while back that other supporters probably feel the same.

Not apologists, just knowledgeable.

[dpbrown]

1. I went to Boston for Kucinich

And I know what you mean.

[babylonsister]

2. This is a great point. The fact is Senator Kerry

has been praised and/or disparaged lots of times because he's been front and center often recently, and has effected some outcomes also. ANWR comes to mind recently.
I'm a big fan! :)

[sasha031]

6. I get upset when Dem's and liberals

eat our own, I believe we have to stick together always.Although I understand people frustration with the DLC,... this past election really pissed me off the media and their sound bites, the swifties, they are as shallow as the repukes, they knew better, and of course the theft.

I can't tolerate people who call themselves conservative, because from my view they don't know what they are talking about if they support this adm.
I have actually severed relationships because of political beliefs, because I believe if you are a rethug these days. you are selfish,mean spirited and stupid.

[acmavm]

3. I listen to them all. The state things are in, who knows where or who the

woman/man will be that on take down the bush** administration and make people sit up and take notice. A few seem to be trying. Me, I love Wesley Clark but over the past few months I gained a respect and admiration for Howard Dean because I think he's found his niche in the party, and he's not afraid of anything or anyone. He's become on of the people that I respect most in this country (or any other country if you want to be picky). And that's because I've been listening to the good Doctor. I think that a lot of people have.

But then there's clowns like Lieberman and Biden. I don't give a damn what they say. I won't waste my time on either one of them. They have never failed to live down to my expectations.

But anyone who falls between these two extremes certainly deserves a chance. Almost.

[LittleClarkie]

13. I have growing respect for both Clark and Dean as well

and I have trouble listening to Biden too, as well as Clinton. I have an easier time with Lieberman, as the smarm factor with him isn't as high. I see him as sincere, albeit misguided. The other two I see as political and calculating.

Thing is, if Hillary does become our nominee, I may have to give her the "Kerry treatment" and research her positions in earnest, depending on her competition and how repulsed I am by them, of course. I was pretty darned repulsed by Bush, and so was sorta thrown into Kerry's arms.

I may have to find a reason to like someone for whom I haven't had alot of enthusiasm in the past. And I may find that I actually like that person, just as I've found with Kerry. We will have to see.

But for now, I try to keep an open mind about most of our Dem leaders (sometimes fail), and hope others can too.

[laugle]

17. Hi Little Clarke; do I detect a softening on your

position......your post sounds very reasonable, weighing the different factors.

You speak of Lieberman and Clinton as too "political and calculating," what struck be about that is, wasn't that what got Bush in the White House? Maybe that is exactly what we need to take back the White House and the congress.

What do you think?

Happy new year to you and yours. 2006 will finally be our year!!

[LittleClarkie]

19. Perhaps. But I'd like some substance behind that calculation as well

We've seen what happens when we are sold a bill of goods based on nothing much more than politics. We end up with a president like Bush.

[laugle]

21. Of course they should have substance. I didn't mean

it as being the only qualification. But your post made me think that it probably should be part of the equasion.

Personally, the ideal would be someone with Kerry's intelligence,Bill Clinton's charm, Clark's military experience, and best of all Hillary's kick-ass mentality!!

And of course throw in some very good political calculating and someone who knows how to play the game!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Problem Is Some Put Them Under The Microscope To Such A Degree That They

Fail to see anything positive to get excited about anymore. Whenever you take something as complex as a human being and search intently under high magnification for any possible flaw you can find, while disregarding the strengths, you will always find what you set out looking for.

None of us could pass the microscope test that some DU'ers lay on them. None of us could. Any time a mind becomes fixated on finding the negative it can find it, and will taint that perception for always. Negativity Breeds Negativity.

Fact is, all that you mentioned are stand up Dems who I am proud of. Each and every one of them. But your time may be better spent not trying to open the minds of those with their eyes on the microscope :)

[ginnyinWI]

5. you have a good point, LC

We do spend a lot more time studying our chosen Dem. I get really frustrated when others are stuck in time(like on Nov 3, 2004)regarding Kerry, and just will not look at what he is saying now and at what he's doing with an objective viewpoint.

I would love reading what supporters of Clark, Dean, Kucinich or whomever would like to report about what their favorite is saying and doing. For some reason, Kerry seems to be a very polarizing figure--people love him or hate him. I guess that means he's really doing something out there.

[sasha031]

8. I can't understand why this country needs some kind of star power

when it comes to a candidate, give me brains and depth any day.

[LittleClarkie]

11. But I've seen the same happen to Clark on occasion, and sometimes Dean

it feels like leftover primary stuff. The old accusations come out, like that Clark is a closet Repub, or that Dean is a phony. And when their folks try to explain, they are called apologists.

Well, hell, I know how that feels. And if they know their guy half as well as I know Kerry, then they deserve to be heard.

[Olney Blue]

7. I read the Kerry flamers with interest to see their point of view.....

sometimes I agree, other times not.

It doesn't change my intense admiration of Kerry's intellect and service to our country.

:patriot:

[sasha031]

10. we have all been accustomed to soundbites

Rove knew that, so he created the marlboro man, ugh, I don't see it but I guess the wing nuts do.

[EST]

9. The problem, if there is one,

is the matter of perspective. You know Kerry pretty well and regard him highly, therefore having a very well justified, from any angle, understanding of and appreciation for him and his principles.
Someone else, about three degrees in a different direction, sees what appears to be a slowness on the uptake or some other things that rub them a little raw, just enough so that Kerry looks like a fake, having to calculate every move, lacking authenticity.
That person also feels they know Kerry pretty well or as well as need be to write him off and they also have a perfectly, logically justified understanding of their concept of Kerry.
We people who meet, here and IRW, in service of a higher calling, must find a way to enjoy, or at least tolerate the totally asinine opinions of those we disagree with, realizing that we have far more common cause, despite our differences, with our lovable circle of jerky compatriots than we do with those whose extreme views allow them to be criminals in support of their own ambitions.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Good point, but in writing him off, they have stopped looking

and in writing him off, they are not likely to listen to someone who has not written him off, and indeed finds him to be rather spiffy.

I guess part of my point is that I'm trying to be more open minded about others like Clark and Dean, because I feel they are trying to do good things. At the very least, we need to be more unified within the party, and part of that unity will come from listening to each other.

Clark and Kerry have been partners on behalf of the troops and their rights, and Clark is one of the loyalist men I've ever seen. He stood up for Dean and refused to back away from Michael Moore when it appeared to be politically expedient. Dean is working on building the party, and needs all the help he can get. And I suspect the Deaniacs are correct when they say that, far from being a loose cannon, he knows exactly what he's saying most of the time, and what reaction he will get.

Just trying not to be so damn partisan about these people, you know?

[EST]

26. You are a treasure.

[karynnj]

31. That may be why a real debate between those people

is useful only if it is:
- specific to an issue or to issue(s)
- fact based
- presented in a non-emotional way
For example, to use one of your points, when someone says Kerry calculates every move based on politics, one side needs to show examples where that appears to be the case. The Kerry side needs to explain how that move was consistent to Kerry's philosophy or believes. If the former group simply says "Kerry always has his finger up seeing which way the wind blows" that will not convince anyone unless it's attached to facts. Likewise, the Kerry people can't simply say "No he doesn't." as it will convince no one.

As a Kerry person - I think this is one of the most easily overturned negatives - because Kerry has, at various times in career nearly made himself a pariah in the Senate and in the Democratic party to do what he thinks is right. The obvious examples being when he continued to fight the terrorist bank after he was told be every power in the Democratic party to stop (because the bank had bought various Democrats as well as Republicans.) and when he risked ridicule and his career to continue pursuing the Contra/drug scandal - where the government ALLOWED the Contras to bring cocaine into this country unimpeded. Kerry as a former prosecutor had been very involved with under privilidged youths and knew the damage. (He has fought for one youth program that he saw work his entire Senate career.)

Given more than one example where a very promising politician was willing to derail his career what is right - which Kerry has done - the charge that he is driven by polls etc doesn't hold. In fact, before entering politics, compare Bill Clinton and John Kerry. In choosing to avoid the draft as he did, Clinton refers to "maintaining his viability". On 60 minutes in an interview with Morey Safer, Kerry was asked in 1971, if he wanted to be President - his answer was something like there were important things that needed to be done now and he didn't know if he could do them and still keep people happy enough for him to become President. (Interesting that the Boston Globe biography ends the answer at "them" distorting the meaning. - when the 60 minutes transcript exists. This is a very interesting example of intended bias where the primary source is in the public domain.)

Now, to me the above detail at least suggests that Kerry is motivated by an internal sense of right and wrong - and I might be able to convince someone who is neutral or who is convincible with these examples. It is more likely that - like Little Clarkie talks about, this type of information might cause someone to investigate whether these are true and to relook at things they thought backed the alternative conclusion more closely. I would certainly not expect anyone to read a post - by someone who accuracy or motives aren't known and be swayed. So, the goal would be to push for some one to be open to relooking at Kerry.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. You know, It really doesn't bother me that some people

don't like Clark. We're a very diverse group of people, and there isn't going to be any Democrat at all who can please everyone. What I can't stand is the people who seem to have this obsessive need to go hating on him, or to crap all over any positive thread on him. Some people seem to just be filled with rage and hatred and seem to post simply for the purpose of being hateful. I've gotten to the point where I almost dread seeing Clark threads here, especially when I know that there will be something someone will pounce on for supposed "gotcha" moment.

I imagine it's the same way for Kerry supporters, or supporters of any particular potential candidate here. That's why, even though there are a number of Democrats that I have very negative feelings about, I try to observe the golden rule, and not engage in bashing, although I will give my honest opinion at times.

We don't all have to like each other's favorite political figure. I just wish we could stop treating each other on this board as the enemy, and start treating each other with a little more respect. I know that's not going to happen, but I can still wish.

[LittleClarkie]

15. That's the point really. Criticize, but don't bash

It's fine not to like someone, but I would hope we'd listen to each other. Not liking Clark is one thing, calling him a closet Republican is another. And calling those who try to explain that they KNOW he's not a closet Republican "apologists" must be frustrating as hell for those to whom it happens.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. It's really the people who jump into the threads

and keep throwing out various ridiculous accusations and draw people into the most convoluted arguements where everything gets twisted around in knots, and they seem to make a sport out of it, and a decent, pleasant thread will turn into a 200+ post flamefest. It's people who like to cherry pick single lines, divorced from their larger context, and keep hammering away. Then there's the people who just like to pop in and drop a nasty little turd, apparently just for the sake of being hurtful. Then there's the oldie, but goodie, accusing me and others of being paid agents for Wes Clark (I could only wish he had that kind of money ), or the ones who imply that I represent some sort of "infestation" of DU, simply for being here and for the fact that I happen to support Clark.

Sorry, you kind of sent me off on a rant. There are some people on this board who will treat you as subhuman based on who your favorite Democrat is. Apparently, for some people, that's what being progressive is all about.

I guess you Kerry supporters must have to deal with alot of the same sort of shit.

[LittleClarkie]

18. Indeed. That was part of the point of this thread as well. Some common

ground and experiences.

Yeah, I've gotten the "operative" thing, the "sychophant" thing, the "apologist" thing. And my favorite the "Kerry freeper" thing.

I'm sort of collecting them now.

[laugle]

20. Great post.....I wish I could recommend it!

I happen to like Hillary, but I think it is way to premature to be deciding on any candidate. I don't mean that people shouldn't discuss strengths and weakness though. The top priority on my mind happens to be the 2006 election.

You are right, when you say that any candidate, not just Kerry will bring out the hate and nasty flame wars.

It's so useless....because once it flames....the other side is no longer listening.

Thanks for this post....I hope you will maybe post this subject, it may do some good.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. I appreciate the sentiment

but posting it as a separate thread would only make people feel resentful, and like they were being preached at. If I got much of any response from it, it would most likely take the form of a flame war. At this point I pretty much try to just stay out of controversial threads, unless I'm in a fighting mood.

If you want to borrow the words, you're free to post it yourself. You could call it something like "You don't have to like my candidate, I just wish you would be a little civil about it."

[laugle]

25. I understand.....I think that is a great title though, maybe others think

so too. We shall see.........

[stepnw1f]

22. Kucinich Was My First Pick But I Supported Kerry

and would do it again. He may not be perfect, but he certainly doesn't deserve the bashing he gets sometimes either. I have nothing but respect for all the Dem candidates, and never felt it necessary to tear any of them apart.

I do believe many hear are very knowledgeable about their candidate... you would get your ass handed to you if you didn't! So in a way, those that bashed just gave some of us motivation to learn as much as we could about our picks.

Even so, I know I don't need the bashing to motivate me that much and would like to see a better sense of community and maybe unity!

[LittleClarkie]

23. Unity... bingo!

That's what I'm talking about.

[emulatorloo]

27. My Favorite Democrat is any Dem who stands up and speaks the truth

and follows through. Dunno, this seems like common sense to me.

So many at DU seem to have a "filter" that kicks in along the lines of "If X said it, I must BASH or post some idiot snark." It doesn't matter if X is moving our cause as Dems ahead.

Some take it further, "If X said it, I must twist it into the worst possible light. Because X must be discredited at all costs"

I try real hard to have empathy and understand human nature. But sometimes I just don't understand the motivation.

[madokie]

28. You got it. as I posted earlier, there is No one who Any one

can agree with all the time. I want to hope the day I depart this life I have changed my mind about something, thought I knew it but now I do, kinda moment. I have them all the time. I say keep an open mind and see just what you can learn.

[MaineDem]

29. Why are we still using these names?

Seems to me all our candidates lost in '04. Why are we still dredging up all this?

Seriously, I think keeping these names just increases the animosity among good Democrats. Isn't it time to move beyond that? I've taken part in many many Presidential campaigns going back to the early 70s. Although I still hear some people say they were Bradley delegates or "Clean for Gene" all have moved on to the next election.

We need to concentrate on winning state legislatures, Governors' races, and the House and Senate in '06. Let's put our effort into that.

Am I missing something major here?

[babylonsister]

30. Our candidate(s) didn't lose; we were robbed. nt

[mattclearing]

32. No, you are absolutely right. '04 is over.

Even though at least two of those candidates will assuredly seek the Democratic presidential nomination in '08, '06 is where any responsible Democrat's head is at right now.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Well, because I still see the different factions here

"We need Warner"

"It must be Edwards"

"Gore has to be the one in 2008"

Everyone has their favorites, it seems. But we can't let it mean that we attack each other.

I'd be happy if Primary 2004 would sort of fade away too. But it seems to have left it's mark in how people react to each other and their favorite pols.

So I try to sew unity in finding common ground, because I too think we need to unify for 2006. Indeed.

[MaineDem]

36. "I'd be happy if Primary 2004 would sort of fade away too."

But that's my point...why bring it up at all? Why still call on the "factions" as such? Why divide people into their '04 camps?

I understand what you're trying to do but I can't comprehend why we're still promulgating the division that Democrats went through for the '04 primary.

That's just my thought. We'll have many more elctions and many more primaries to live through as the years go by.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Odd, isn't it. This is my first proper election

do they normally last this long?

From my point of view I'm not dividing them into their camps. I think there are many who just still ARE divided into their different camps. And I still see different factions sticking their tongues out at each other. So before we hit 2006, I'll do what I can to bring them together.

I could be wrong, of course.

But there are still times when you will see comments like "Kerry's a flip flopper" or "Dean's really a pro-war centrist" and the occasional "Clark is a closet Republican."

When folks pop their heads up to say, "No he isn't" I will often jump in to help. And my point in this thread is that these folks deserve listening to if they've been paying more attention to one person or another.

And the thing is, I also see people wanting to skip 2006 and head straight for 2008. We don't need to start the divisiveness of the 2008 primaries now, not when we have the 2006 elections to get through.

So I guess I just see more divisions than you. Hope I'm wrong.

[rox63]

33. Thanks for starting this thread, LC

I'm a big Kerry supporter, but I would be almost as delighted to have Dean, Clark, Edwards or Gore in the White House. They are all intelligent and able leaders. In fact, just about any Democrat would be a huge improvement after the * reign of terror. I'll be dancing in the streets if the Dems take this country back from the criminals and war-mongers currently driving it towards ruin.

I think we have to stick together as Dems if we are to have any chance of success in '06 and '08. Expressing opinions and constructive criticism is fine. But purposely bashing a fellow Dem because he or she is not your chosen candidate is simply destructive. The Rethugs cheer when they see us eating our own. Let's not give them that pleasure. Let's concentrate on taking back our country.

K&R.

[LittleClarkie]

34. You're welcome

I'm just a unity gal at heart.