Who here thinks folks shouldn't advocate for their candidate on this board?

[bigtree]

If it comes to the point here where I can't advocate for my candidate on this board, I'll find somewhere else to post. I've seen a few posters complaining about threads which highlight candidates and their activities, statements, speeches, controversies, etc.. My feeling is that this is the exact place where that type of advocacy should be taking place.

What is there to fear from the impact of someone advocating for their candidate here? I think it's about the critics' own inadequacies in debating their own point of view, but I'm willing to hear folks out who don't think candidate advocacy should be happening here, or feel there should be some limit to advocating for our Democratic candidates. (I don't intend to stop advocating for my candidate here unless I'm directed to by the mgmt.)


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[patricia92243]

1. Advocating your candidate - yes. Bad-mouthing other candidates - no. n/t

[bigtree]

2. I've pledged against ANY candidate-bashing

and I practice what I preach

[patricia92243]

3. Sounds good - go for it!!!

[papau]

13. agree :-)

:-)

[cali]

4. Of course people should feel free to advocate

for a candidate they like. Have at it, I say.

[NotGivingUp]

5. this is a political discussion forum...i believe that means discussing the good AND the bad

points of our candidates.

[NotGivingUp]

6. bringing up the bad points about candidates should not be called bashing or bad-mouthing.

[bigtree]

8. I do think that the many of the "bad points" are also open to debate

and should try to stay within the context of the thread and try to offer defensible criticisms with some documentation if challenged.

[NotGivingUp]

27. i agree.

[rebel with a cause]

19. No, but saying that two of the candidates

are not worthy to be tread marks in the underwear of a real leader is just bad bashing and uncalled for. And no, I am not saying you did this but someone else did on another thread.

[NotGivingUp]

26. that IS bashing...and disgusting!

[H2O Man]

7. I think they should.

I think it is one of the most interesting parts of DU. I think that there are a number of potentially very strong candidates and "tickets" for 2008. I'm interested in what other people think.

What I've noticed is that there are a variety of both "pro-" and "anti-" posts. Many are very informative, and provide links and documentation to back up the position the author takes. Others are less informative, and rely on anything from raw emotion to undocumented claims to make the author's case.

There are a lot of extremely important issues facing us as a nation, and DU provides a great place to discuss those issues, and debate which candidates best represent progressive democrats .... and which candidates seem to have values that are closer to republicans than to progressive democrats.

[bigtree]

14. Good insight, as always. One thing . . .

I tend to be 'progressive' on some issues, and would be considered (by those who keep track of such things) on some issues more moderate.

I think republicanism is the more pernicious as an organization than it is as an ideology. It's the lockstep organizing principle of intolerance which is the actual point where I'm affected. I couldn't care less what they think. I'm more than secure in my own 'ideology' in any battle of ideas. I do think ideology is important, but, I've noticed that often it's just used as a blanket for a weak argument.

In the Congress there will often be divergent views on an issue which evaporate at voting time. There seems to be no courage of their own stated convictions, and that is what I see as the most threatening thing about republicans in my lifetime. That doesn't account, of course for their absolutely bankrupt philosophy which they try to cosset with every money-grubbing, warmongering initiative they want us to fund with our hard-earned sacrifices . . .

There's also the effect their majority, along with the WH, has had on judgeships, the environment, trade agreements, and the whole host of infections from the army of conservative minions they let in the door.

I'm mostly in line with your ideological drift, but H2O Man, does characterizing others' ideas as 'republican' really provide a valid and useful enough definition?

[H2O Man]

20. One example:

There's a democratic senator named Liebermann. His ideas on the Iraq war strike me as closer to, say, John McCain's than to my own. He has played a significant role in national elections in the past 7 years. Now, I recognize that he isn't running for the presidency or vice presidency in '08, at least not yet. However, he is frequently mentioned in the discussions of the war, and what position various democrats are advocating in the Senate. I believe that in the past week, there was even some discussion about his expressing alienation from other democrats who are advocating opposition to the Bush administration's war plans. Is it valid to characterize his position on Iraq as being closer to that of republicans than of progressive democrats? I think so. I think a lot of DUers would, as well. I think it is both useful and fair to look very closely at each and every elected officials' position on Iraq. And that includes looking not only at what they are saying, but at what votes they have cast, and exactly who they are taking campaign contributions from, as well. That seems "valid and useful enough" in the primary season.

[bigtree]

23. That's true. Some positions are obvious and blatent

Others aren't as striking, like differing principles which compelled two opposite members to vote for the same legislation, like Wellstone and his vote for the Patriot Act.

[H2O Man]

24. Very true.

Any time two people think just alike on everything, it means that only one of them is thinking. And that's why democrats, unlike republicans, usually recognize that they aren't going to agree with any one candidate on every issue. We do best when we keep an open mind, and focus on finding which candidates are taking positions we favor on the issues that are most important to us.

There are a number of issues that are very important to me. I recognize that none of them are going to get proper funding, however, if the Bush/neoconservative policies continue in the Middle East. It is no different than in the days of LBJ: while progressive democrats endorsed the Great Society, it was not possible when the country was investing its treasure -- including people and money -- in an immoral war in Southeast Asia.

When we examine the nature of the neoconservatives, we should recognize that they have allies that we can accurately describe as neoliberals. While those neoliberals may sincerely believe in the basic Great Society values, if they support the Bush madness in the Iraq, they are in fact draining the resources this country requires to reach that higher level. More, they are investing in an immoral war.

Again, it is worth our openly discussing where different candidates are getting their funding. Do they take large contributions from, for example, an organization that is associated with advocating expanding the military conflict in the Middle East? These are important issues, and will play a role in my determining which candidates I will consider donating time and/or money to.

[speedoo]

9. I think anyone who has an established link to any candidate should so disclose.

I suspect that there are some here who are advocating for their candidate, and possibly against others, not because they are doing so only as "citizens". If that's true, they must either stop, or disclose their affiliation each time they post.

[bigtree]

11. you know, that's a good point. I wonder though, about confidentiality

would it have to be a thorough outing, in your opinion, or is there some sort of summary disclosure short of complete exposure which would suit?

(I work in a grocery store at night and write by day for free. That's all I'm affiliated with right now.)

[speedoo]

15. Thanks. I don't see why confidentiality would be an issue...

but I haven't thought about that much at all.

I think a boilerplate disclosure is fine, as long as it makes clear the poster's affiliation. As Fitz would say...

"It gets to motive."!!

[zanne]

10. That's what the primaries are all about.

We have to read, listen, watch, research, debate and even argue. (Though I admit It'd be fun to see the Republican candidates go after each other, too).

[scarletwoman]

12. I'd personally prefer that candidate threads were posted in GD-Politics, but that's just my opinion.

It's already damn difficult to keep substantial policy discussions kicked up in GD, and harder still when candidate threads are added to the daily clutter.

Hopefully, the admins will open up a GD-Primary forum soon where all the candidate threads can duke it out with each other and leave GD mercifully free of horse race posts.

In the meantime, I do very much wish that candidate threads were confined to the GD-Politics forum, which seems like the most appropriate venue. Not all of us believe that the 2008 election is the most pressing issue at this time. Some of us find it much more relevant to concentrate on the actions of those who are in office NOW.

sw

[bigtree]

16. I would agree, but, you've seen the threads. What's more important

the election or . . . you know . . .

I expect there will come the time in the campaign when all debate is limited to GD politics as in the past elections, but that forum is so slow now.

btw, the majority of the candidates are still legislating as they run. They are relevant to the current debates and issues of the day.

[scarletwoman]

25. Iran is important to me. Getting out of Iraq is important to me. Impeachment is important to me.

Keeping an eye on how many of our civil liberties are being stripped away is important to me. Pointing out the atrocities being perpetrated by the MIC is important to me. Corporate privitazation and globalization is important to me. Revealing the WHOLE truth of the malfeasance of the criminal cabal currently in power is important to me. Driving a stake through the heart of bushco NOW is important to me.

Campaigning for the 2008 election is NOT important to me unless the campaigners are directly and forcefully addressing all of the above, as well as the fact that our Constitutional Republic has been severely, if not fatally, damaged. I refuse to participate in a sham political process that does not recognize that this country has been moved WAY beyond "normal" -- and as far as I'm concerned, campaigning for the 2008 election is nothing more than the corporatocracy's way of maintaining the pretense that the U.S. is a "democracy", when it is no longer anything of the sort.

Our country is deep deep trouble. No election is going to fix it, when what's really required is profound institutional change. The 2008 election campaign is about maintaining the illusion that the status quo is something other than profoundly fucked up.

sw

[bigtree]

30. there's really no line between these and the candidates

if you believe they would make an ultimate difference in resolving these issues.

Clinton's a sitting senator. Is she irrelevant to these issues? Or Richardson? He's still actively involved in negotiations in Darfur.

I might agree if we had neophytes running, but the bulk of these candidates have the means to make a difference now, and their positions and actions now - in the election spotlight - are often what sparks attention and action on intractable concerns.

[scarletwoman]

31. The thing is, I have just about zero faith in the electoral system as an agent of real change.

Electoral politics in this country, as it is currently constituted, is the triumph of money over all other considerations. The Ruling Class puts on a convincing show for the masses, while preserving its control over the institutions of governence, and its privileges and perogatives.

It's just kubuki theatre designed to maintain the status quo no matter who "wins".

sw

[radfringe]

17. advocating for a particular candidate is part of democracy

For me, I find it very helpful and I'm able to glean alot of information in a short amount of time.

Granted, I may not agree with or particulary like a candidate - but at least I am informed.

What I don't appreciate are the threads bashing people who support a candidate. I remember the flame wars over DEANiacs, or NADERites... - just plain stupid if you ask me.

I also don't think it's going to be slam-dunk for anyone running on any party ticket.

Just my opinion - unless the political climate changes dramatically, or some unforseen event occurs, the current trend is leaning more and more favorably toward a "surprise" dark horse.

that being said - I'm in the TOODANG EARLY for President camp

[bigtree]

18. it is too dang early, but they've boxed us in with these early primaries

the candidates can lose their heads, like Vilsack, if they don't get support NOW, not later when folks like us may think it's convenient. That's why there's this push to advocate so early.

[radfringe]

21. yeah, I know - it's a rush to seperate the wheat from the chaff

and probably to give more time to the primary winner to gear up and start bashing the opposition...

[cooolandrew]

22. Oh bama , oh bama, oh bama, =)

It is a place to express views after all.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. I personally don't see anything wrong with advocating your candidate

on here. As a matter of fact, I look forward to it. I'm not sure whether many of you realize the impact you make, and the impressions you leave, on people like me. I'm a relative newcomer to the world of politics, and the information and education that I've gotten here is priceless. This is where I come for all of my news and information now.

Sure, I voted in the past, but it was just an errand to go do. Go down to the school, vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, leave.... repeat in 4 years.

The "nightmare decision 2000" really opened my eyes a little bit. When I first heard the name George W. Bush as a candidate, my first reaction was a feeling of horror. I can't explain it, as I had never even read anything about him, or about Poppy for that matter. I just somehow knew that Poppy was evil. Call it instinct, I don't know. The few times I did see or hear Gee DUHbya on the news, my thoughts were "lord, this guy is freakin' moron! He can't even string a coherent sentence together, there's NO WAY he'll ever win. What a DOOFUS!"

If I only knew then, what I know now....

The 9/11 attacks got me looking a little harder too. I'll have to admit that when I first heard about the towers being hit, my first thought was "what the hell has Bush gone and done now!?!" But that's a whole other story in itself.

This misadministration has been a drain on our Country physically, emotionally, mentally and financially. I urge you all to advocate your candidates. But please do so responsibly... and for the ones who don't agree with a certain candidate or poster, please try to remain civil and rational in your rebuttals of these candidates. You never know what kind of impression you will leave on a newbie who is still checking this forum out, deciding whether to join or not. If all they see is a bunch of in-fighting and Dem bashing, they're not going to want to stick around.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Who here thinks ducks shouldn't quack?

;)

About the same thing.

[The Straight Story]

32. What, did I step into FR or something? No bad talking someone if they buy a 'D' letter?

Starting to sound like the catholic church and molesting priests. Sheesh.

[Adelante]

33. It's our duty

We're looking to nominate the best Democrat to run for the President of the United States. Every single candidate for this highest office should be individually vetted by every single one of us. That takes candidate advocacy as well as candidate critique. We must do this for our democracy. I'm fine with it being done in GDP and not GD, that's fair enough, and I would certainly want any discussion to be issues-based, because it's the greatest value. GDP was founded for the purpose of campaigns, anyway. To those who object to criticism of their candidate, I say, as long as it's true, as long as the race is among Democrats, then negative or positive, we should discuss all our candidates, including warts, in carrying out our duty to democracy. We STFU for the GE, not for the Primaries. I particularly would like to say to those who shout "Right Wing Talking Points!!" to true points of criticism, not the false ones, the right wing does its own oppo research and doesn't rely on Democratic Underground for its talking points. We must tell the TRUTH, that's all we have to worry about.