I'm sick of the Clinton and Kerry bashing threads

First of all, the number of anti-Clinton/Kerry threads repeatedly appearing on the boards is suspect.

Why has it become so important, all of a sudden to bash? In a country where the Constitution is being ripped to shreds, Clinton and Kerry are NOT the enemy. Neither has done a thing to hurt the American people, nor have they lied or stolen from us. On the other hand, there are crooks with their hands in the till as we speak.

How about focusing on the real enemy for a fucking moment?

particular candidate--there's room for disagreement. But even if it's not against the rules, seeing three anti-Kerry or Clinton threads on the front page is disturbing.

It's a waste of time and it takes the focus away from the more serious issues. It also smacks of propoganda--people trying to change others' minds, and turn them against Clinton. This is not that place that this should be happening.

After witnessing Clinton being torn down for eight years, I really don't care to see it happen again, especially here. As Clinton said on his interview with Jennings, when he was being lauded by the entire world at the UN, they showed his grand jury testimony--anything to block his greatness. Let the man have his moment(s).

.

... wouldn't you agree that there's not agreed upong definition that effectively differentiates the two in some peoples minds?

I think there would be agreement among people who disagree about most things that statements like "Kerry thinks he's the boss because he just sent me an email asking for my support on a child-care bill" is nothing more than bashing.

Statements like this are in no way constructive. Neither are things like "Clinton should shut the fuck up" merely because he said he likes bush*

I would also hope that "criticisms" based entirely on fictions would be seen as not qualifying as "constructive"

I don't see how repeating the lies that Drudge tells makes it "constructive"

Couldn't it be considered criticism to say the Bill Clinton doesn't help progressives or average Americans when he stands up and publicly calls for the two parties to hold hands and sing love songs? I think it would fall under the rubric of "criticism" to suggest that minimizing the brutality of the neo-conservative fascist-hijacked republican party is a tragic mistake, especially not while many are still fighting - without media support or serious part support - to get an actual fair count of the vote and undo the fraud that has been committed.

You can disagree with that point of view, but I think I can make a perfectly fine case that this is a "criticism" - regardless of whether it includes the phrase "Clinton should shut the fuck up" (which he should.)

I think that it is criticism to suggest that John Kerry, as the loser of the election, should perhaps stop thinking so much about trying to lose another election in 2008, and more about what's best for the Democratic party right now, and I'm not necessarily sure what's best is for him to become "Super-Senator" and work outside party leadership in john-Wayne style to push agendas. Personally, I don't fully agree with that criticism - but that's just the thing. Just because I disagree doesn't mean it is therefore nothing but bashing with no value. I just disagree.

Just some examples of how one person can see bashing where another doesn't.

Repukes are evil. Democrats should have been watching my back?
Where were they? Where are they now?

this is simply a 'meeee tooooo' post. :yourock:

Just look at what is happening with Delay. Suddenly the tables are turned so the house is rebuking the guy who wants DELAY brought to justice? This country is turning inside out!

shouldn't entitle a poster to spam DU with Clinton- and Kerry-bashing rhetoric.

If we can't vent about our leaders or candidates or take up serious concerns about them in a any forumn then we become just like the mindless drones of the Republican party. Then are not gods they are men and are not above reproach.

it's pointless. Clinton is not in office, nor is Kerry. So why all the excessive negative attention? It seems to only have one purpose--to tear down their images of strength in order to divide us.

One has to wonder at the purpose of those threads at this time.

I'm not sure of the content of the threads to which you refer as I've been off the board for a few days.

But the idea that that only the "really" bad guys should be critiqued here is shortsighted, to put it mildly. One of the great things about a forum like this is the opportunity for self-examination. We are a party which has not achieved fifty percent in a nat'l election since *CARTER*!

Big Bill, despite the subsequent mystique and mythology, polled 43% and 49% ( with a great economy, an all southern ticket and and a weak reelect opponent) in his nat'l runs, respectively. Gore and Kerry garnered 49 and 48 repectively, but ferchrissakes, look who they were running against. What is Hillary or whomever, going to do when they have to face an adult opponent in 2008 ( McCain, Powell, whomever)? One that can actually speak and think??? I think you're looking at a McGovern/Mondale type landslide, frankly.

As a national party, we got problems. Better to hash them out here and now than pretend that nothing is wrong.

There's not a shred of doubt about that. That's far more than I can say about your candidate.

No doubt about Kerry or Clinton are you kidding. I voted for both of them but they are not prefect. Go to these sights and check out some of the articles there. http://www.counterpunch.com http://www.freepress.org

Also before you open your mouth and say that they are Repug websites NOTHING can be further from the truth

I'll repeat what I said before: Clinton WON the elections fair and square. There is NO DOUBT about that. Bush's selections have been plagued by fraud and disenfranchisement of voters. Better an elected president than a selected one.

I thought you were saying that Clinton was without faults not that he didn't win his elections fair and square. Do check them out the are great sites with great writers. There haven't been really any Clinton articles save one. If you don't you are missing out and if you don't agree with a single writer it will definitely give you some food for thought. I will check in later because more immediate concerns have come up. The paycheck just arrived in the mail and I need cash it.

You speak as if the criticisms of "bashing" is a criticism of ALL criticism.

Constructive criticism is encouraged. Bashing is not.

15 threads exoriating Clinton because he said he likes bush* is NOT "constructive"

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from savaging our own. Da nada.

newt and the neocon agenda...and part of that agenda is to instigate infighting agmonst dems by infiltraing the party with the DLC...the DLC was created by the neocons!

...from the uberliberals if we're not allowed to bash Clinton and Kerry??!!

That being said, I dislike what Clinton says these days (not to Jennings, that was good). Kerry broke his promise to fight for us when conceded .

There is a school of thought that says Clinton was soo centrist that it destroyed the party. Whatever. They discount the Reagan landslides.

Clinton gave the Republicans NAFTA and got nothing in return. He failed in health care. His private behavior cost us the election in 2000. Kerry told us what a fighter he was and how every vote would be counted. He conceded the election the very next day when none of the votes had been counted. None of this should be swept under the carpet. Are they preferable to Bush? Of course. But they both let us down in a way that Bush has not let his supporters down.

You're kidding right? I guess you never heard of Katherine Harris and Diebold or Volusia County. And I thought denial was just a River in Egypt...

Had it not been for Clinton's behavior it wouldn't have been. Do you seriously contend that Harris had more to do with the defeat of Gore than Clinton? Has Kerry contested the Diabold machines?

grand theft 2000 aka as the presidential election. As for Harris, I do contend that she was part of a cast of thousands (i.e. Bush/Cheney's Supreme Court justice/hunting buddy Scalia, James Baker, the RW media) who had everything to do with the slick theft of the presidency in 2000 and now in 2004.

that does not exonerate Clinton and Kerry. Much as I detest Bush I cannot imagine him behaving the way Clinton did in the White House. Nor can I imagine him conceding the election the way Kerry did.

tens of thousands of lives but if he ever had a BJ in the White House, WELL, that would be HORRIBLE. Sounds like some Kool Aid drinking's been going on somewhere to me.

But I am still waiting for you to explain how Clinton's behavior and Kerry's concession helps us win elections. I expect nothing from Bush. I do expect something from Clinton and Kerry.

What is your point here at all? :shrug:

We lost the last two elections. Either because we didn't get enough votes or because no one cared enough to get them counted. It makes no difference. Clinton was mostly to blame for Gore's loss. After assuring us through the entire campaign that our votes would be counted, Kerry caved. If we don't grasp this we have no future. Bush was a weak opponent in both elections. BUT WE LOST. We are unlikely to get so weak an opponent in the future. We have to understand how a man with Bush's appalling resume, record and policies ever even came close to being President of our Country. Kerry conceding the way he did is equally inexplicable.

round of election thievery and we were powerless to do anything about getting votes counted after Bush's Supremes stepped in. Trying to follow logical lines of reason to explain campaign strategies and election outcomes when the rules have been changed by thievery is an exercise in futility.

Why not buy some voting machines????

machines would be a mistake for any candidate? Are you suggesting that Kerry cheat? When has a candidate bought voting machines directly for that matter--that's a state responsibiilty. Ever heard of BBV during the time you built up all those posts?

I don't see what the number of posts I have has to do with anything. To make sure voting machines are not made by Diabold, and that there are enough machines so that people are not waiting in line for eight hours is not "cheating". Where did you get the idea that I was suggesting Kerry "cheat'?

ial candidates. And buying them would not guarantee they'd be made available since that would be the responsibility of the states as well.

As for the cheating reference: electronic voting machines are basically a tool for stealing votes and if that's what you are suggesting that Kerry purchase, then I equate that with advocating cheating.

So buy the Scanner type. Any election can be audited at a price. So audit them! Are you still willing to leave it to the states to decide on how elections are conducted? Even with the results of the last two elections? The fewest voting machines were in Democratic counties. I doubt these counties would object to a little help from the DNC to buy voting machines.

are missing? Buying more is no guarantee that they will be made available. No state has come forward and asked for more machines. If Kerry bought them, who exactly would they go to in a country with 50 states and how we he assure they are used? This is not a solution, it is a non-issue.

Who knows how many didn't. Why isn't election day a national holiday? If our own Democratic election officials won't ask for help after an election like the last what possible chance do we have in the future? Do you believe that the next election will be any fairer than this if we do nothing but "leave it to the States"? Incidental we would give the machines to Democratic counties not states.

no control over. If political operatives are in place to ensure that machines aren't available next election as they were in the recent one, Kerry's donations would mean little. It is expected that the next election will be as fraudulent as this one but buying machines who solve the problem nor will bashing Kerry.

You may think that Kerry fairly lost this election. I don't. If we do nothing for the next four years what makes you think the next election will be different? Kerry could have made a point. He could have taken his excess dollars from the campaign and had the DNC buy voting machines. The machines then could have been donated to those counties in Ohio where there was a clear shortage of machines. Do this with as much publicity as you can get. What is the point of spending half a billion dollars on a election campaign when you won't spend a few million on making sure your people can vote? And that their vote is counted.

Kerry has never been the "leader of the party". The DNC is an organization and it has a chairman. His name is Terry McAuliffe. As head of the DNC, *HE* is "the leader of the party"

wurzel's arguments depend on fallacious definitions:

Bashing = constructive criticism

Dem candidate = leader of the party

You are saying Kerry should have known beforehand that there were shortages--which still has not been proven--and he could have helped by buying machines. Where is your proof of (a) a shortage --remembering that not making machines available does not mean there is a shortage only that they were withheld; and (b) that Kerry knew in time to help out?

This is nonsense.

My "proof" is eight hour long lines. If they were "withheld" they were "withheld" by Democrats! These were Democratic counties. Controlled by Democrats!

Knowing after the fact doesn't change what happened. Throwing machines out there does not alleviate the problem either--the problem is those who manage the inventories. Why should somebody spend $15 million on machines only to turn them over to people who can't assure that they will be used? Buying machines is a non issue. There are way more important things that have to be done like getting to the root causes for the shortages and fraud.

If voting machines don't matter. What does? Bev Harris has been on about these machines from the beginning. But they were used just the same. Even though everyone knew they were crooked. The machines were the fraud! And in Democratically controlled districts! Should we spend more money for TV ads?

Even things like "Kerry voters waited in the rain for hours to vote" and the fact that it was the STATES that bought the machines, not Kerry, become "constructive criticism"

I noticed that in your first post in this part of the thread, you said that "Kerry and Clinton deserve criticism", which I see as a straw man, because lizanelle complained of "bashing" and not "criticism"

I don't know of anyone who is "Bashing" Clinton and Kerry. That sounds like a "strawman". I supported Kerry and thought him a great candidate until he conceded before the votes were counted. I think he won this election It was a terrible mistake that may set the precedent for the next election. After 2000 no Democrat can ever concede before the votes are counted. Period. I thought this was understood by Kerry. Write it in the "DNC rule book". How many times must we learn that lesson!

It's just a "quiblle with words"?

"There's no difference" between the points you raise (which I see as valid and constructive criticism, though I don't agree with you) and something like "Clinton should just shut the fuck up"?

Can you explain how "Clinton should just shut the fuck up"? is constructive?

If there was one the alert button should have been pressed. Not a new thread started that brings the whole thing up again.

Is there a difference between "bashing" and "constructive criticism"? If yes, what distinguishes one from the other?

You just implied "there's no difference". You called it a "quibble with words"

Now, you're implying that *that* sort of criticism is inappropriate. Is it "bashing? Is it "constructive criticism"? Is there a difference? If not, then why do you think that constructive criticism should have been deleted by the mods?

Sorry put this on the wrong post #. I am not sure what you mean by "bashing". Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one? I think I bash Bush all the time. But I don't use foul language nor do I misrepresent him. There is no need. "Cheney is a crook". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"? The same is true of Kerry and Clinton. "Clinton's behaviour in the Oval office was disgraceful". Is that "bashing" or "criitcism"? "Kerry's immediate concession was a betrayal of his supporters". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"?

I am not sure what you mean by "bashing".

Really? If you don't even know what "bashing" is, then why are posting in a thread about bashing?

Why are you taking a position on bashing when you don't even know what it is? (Oh, you haven't taken a position on bashing? Then what are you doing in this thread?)

Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one?

You tell me! Is foul language a part of "constructive criticism"? Always or just some of the time? There's much you could talk about here, but for some reason, you continually avoid the issue of "bashing" even though it's the subject of this thread.

You are trying to hide behind the lack of a clear definition for the word "clarity", but in spite of their being no clear definition, it's obvious that we all have an opinion on what is appropriate criticism and what is inappropriate.

But for some reason, you avoid this point like the plague, even though it's the central issue in this thread. Jst about every poster in this thread has referred to the notion of "constructive criticism vs bashing", including you, and yet you refuse to discuss it.

You have suddenly introduced "constructive criticism" in quotes as if you are quoting me. I don't recall ever using the term "constructive criticism". Every time I make what seems to me to be a good faith effort to understand how bashing differs from criticism you claim I am avoiding the issue. You define what you call "bashing". Can you do it any better than I can? Give me an example of what you call "bashing". And what you call "criticism".

I will try again. Perhaps "bashing" is a matter of repetition. Take the so called "Dean Scream". When it was first aired I thought it unfair and distorting but not "bashing". But they showed it over 700 times in that negative way. Now that seemed to me to be "bashing".

I am not sure what you mean by "bashing". Is it the use of foul language? Is it misrepresenting some one? I think I bash Bush all the time. But I don't use foul language nor do I misrepresent him. There is no need. "Cheney is a crook". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"? The same is true of Kerry and Clinton. "Clinton's behaviour in the Oval office was disgraceful". Is that "bashing" or "criitcism"? "Kerry's immediate concession was a betrayal of his supporters". Is that "bashing" or "criticism"?

"Neither has done a thing to hurt the American people"

But I'm not sure where that comes from.

http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=339608
It was on theit talking points memo today

"Freepers" did not put that stain on on Lewinsky's dress. Nor did "Freepers" concede the election before one vote had been counted!

see my post at # 17. It's just this new talking point: "we lost because of Clinton" that was started on the media ny a GOP strategist that is freeperish
Sorry you don't get any. (not really)

If we don't understand how Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office was so offensive to most Americans we have no hope of ever winning another. And we don't deserve to. I can't remember Gore being seen with Clinton during the whole 2000 campaign. Why on Earth do you think that was?

You are trying to insert an invalid argument into a valid discussion about the bashing being senseless. Fraud is a factor that cannot be circumvented when it is widespread which is what we are faced with now thanks to your president.

The fact is Bush is "my President" thanks to a total failure of the Democratic Party leadership to stand and fight. Both in 2000 and 2004. I heard some argument about how much money Kerry had over in his campaign. And no one knows what to do with it? BUY SOME VOTING MACHINES!!!

the Democratic Party leadership. It's due to lies, corruption and thievery and the fact that you seem to be unable to acknowledge that speaks volumes.

The question is what to do about it. We now have the most corrupt administration perhaps in our history in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. And what are we getting from our leaders? Quote Clinton the other day. "I must be the only person in America who likes both Kerry and Bush". Kerry "We must unite the country now". Unite the country behind Bush? And you seem to think I am the problem???

he does the exact opposite at every turn--you never hear that from the media. The media extracts what they want you to parrot and they'd like us to think that Bush has support from all quarters--as untrue as that is. Clinton and Kerry have both voiced their disdain for what's going on in the country as well, Clinton did that during the interview with Jenning the other night. Still all of these men are politicians. They utter niceties publicly because they are almost required to but don't pretend that's these few sentences embody all that Kerry or Clinton have said or done.

I don't need lessons about Bush. If Kerry and Clinton have disdain for what is going on the country then surely they must hold Bush responsible. I do. I agree that these men are politicians. But you can say a lot with omission as well. I regard the Bush administration as utterly corrupt. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I don't think so. I think now is the time for the Democratic leadership to go after Bush and his gang with no holds barred. Bash them all day and every day. Block every way they can. If necessary bring the entire government to a standstill. Except for supporting the troops. With what the Republicans are getting away with today what do we have to lose? Do you really believe the next election will be different than the last two if we don't play hardball now? The days for "niceties" are over.

"Bash them all day every day..."

On the one hand I agree. Bringing the government to standstill is possible. I'm not sure whether we can do that having lost so many seats. It is time to make a stand--but when you have the RW sneakily sandwiching legislation for abortion in with bills that would benefit Americans, all we will hear is that our people failed to vote for the good laws.

On the other hand, I am not so sure that bashing would be picked up by the media. What we will hear and see of this will be controlled in Bush's favor.

At least these are solutions which are not singling out and bashing.

I really thought Kerry would win this election. And in my heart I believe he did. This "election" has not only made the next four years legitimate it has validated the last four years. It has validated the war in Iraq. The "Home Security Act". What happened in that Iraq prison. The politicization of all our institutions from the CIA to the Church. The give away of Social Security money to the rich in the form of "tax cuts". I could go on and on. Many people may become convinced that things can no longer be changed through the ballot box. Either they will switch off, or take to the streets. I don't believe the DNC really understands this. It is time for them to say outright that it is not going to unite behind nor cooperate with the Bush Adminstration. And I have heard some of our "leaders" suggest that we do.

You keep arguing that they "deserve" to be criticized, but you don't respond to the issue the OP raised, which is whether they deserve "bashing"

How did you hide it so long?

lizanelle complained of "bashing", and your non-responsive response has been to argue that it's OK to "criticize"

How much longer do you think you'll be able to continue substituting one for the other without anyone noticing?

Won't such a thread merely lead to more "bashing"? If you think a thread on Clinton or Kerry is "bashing" then push the alert button. That is what it is for. I have not merely argued that it is OK to criticize. I have tried to explain what that criticism is. That is what this Board is for.

I guess you were too busy trying to conflate "bashing" with "constructive criticism"

And again you avoid stating what YOU think the difference is between bashing and constructive criticism. Funny how your main point refers to this difference, but you won't explain how you view the difference.

We need to stay away from those threads bashing Democrats.


Now Zell Miller is another story letting him fade into retirement would be the order of the day. If Joe Lieberman joins the Bush administration that would be a disaster.

The Democratic Presidential contenders should all be hands off.

actually being counted. Newsflash: votes are being trashed and stolen and it's neither Kerry's or Clinton's fault.

Clinton marked the beginning of the rush to the right of the democratic party, the betrayal of the principles of traditional liberalism, the movement of the party deeper into bed with business and further away from the people.

Not only did John Kerry run a weak campaign, and stand only marginally apart from Bush in international ideology, it is also the utterly failing politics of centrism, and me too-ism and trying to win by pandering to the conservative base that made the election close enough to steal.

You who are up in arms about the election fraud are missing the most important point. This president is one of the worst presidents in history. His record is abysmal, the economy has never fully recovered, he lost jobs as president, people are dying everywhere for his war based on lies, he cannot point to one single real success. The fact that the election was even close enough that it could be stolen is a testimony to how weak and fairly the right-wing democratic party actually is, how weak our presidential candidate selection really was, and how utterly messed up both parties are.

do with Dem weaknesses and everything to do with media bias, polling biases and election theft. As for Kerry being a weak candidate, chalk that one up to the RW media too. Place the blame where it really belongs--not on Kerry or on Clinton, but on the theft of democracy by the right wing.

Any and everyone of ou would vote for them again, but somehow a critical look at ourselves gets people called freeper and a lot worse.

Clinton won himslef, but left the party in far, far worse condition than he found it, kerry just lost.

Until we figure out what we are doing, we can not figure out what to change, and until we change course, we will continue to get what we are getting.

I am not willing to accept that.

We should debate the direction of the party. And who is best to lead us there. No problem with that.

I am afraid that, in your short stint here, i've seen nothing but t rw-talking-point crititicsms of the party and its leaders. What you have offered so far IS NOT "healthy" in my opinion.

Maybe you could clarify EXACTLY what Clinton did to leave the party in such shambles as you have been perpetually ranting about.

Good: he governed fro mthe middle, he took baby steps

Bad: his morals and he made the discussion about HIM, not the ISSUES.

If clinton had taken that unbelievable aboility to communicate and persuade and focused it on getting issues passed, he would have gotten massive parts of our agenda through. Instead we got a few crumbs, and a rock-star hero for a ex-president.

First, i don't see how one can celebrate the fact that he moved the the middle yet at the same time criticize him for not using his ability to get "our" issues passed. Naturally, moving to the center means fewer classic democratic policies become viable options. I am critical that he was TOO centist-leaning and not committed enough to the principles of the Left. But the reality was that he had to deal with a Repuke-led Congress since 1994. In the end, he behaved like a rational actor, rather than a principled leader. I preferred more of the latter.

Second, regarding "morals" -- sure, he is personally flawed, as we all are. However, the discussion became about HIM BECAUSE he was targeted for character-assasination from the get-go by the "vast right wing conspiracy." THEY made the discussion about him. And they were incredibly successful. That is irrefutable. It was clear to most of us then; it's crystal clear now. To claim otherwise is to deny history.

push the notion that Clinton is an attention hog--Peter Jennings did it the other night goading him about caring about his ranking at 41st in moral values of all presidents. 41st according to who is the question that should be asked. Instead the question asked what you really care that people think you are immoral don't you? Why not ask him when he stopped beating his wife instead?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2530744#2532707

How is this healthy? How does accusing Kerry's aides of doing something they DID NOT DO, help us "figure out what to change"?

And if the thread was meant to help Kerry, why was there no acknowledgement by those who made the false claim, that they're claim was false?

And how about this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1370649#1371112

How does "Kerry isn't going to do shit and you can count on that." help us "figure out what to change"?

If you think this is ALL attributable to a desire for "constructive" criticism, you haven't been paying attention

I am sick of all the people turning on Kerry too. Kerry is not the reason we lost this election. Companies like Diebold and people like Ken Blackwell are. We need to focus our energies not on bashing Kerry, but on fixing the voting process. Until we are able to hold elections in which we can get accurate and honest results of vote totals, we are all in trouble!

jobs we face. Who can do that? Neither Clinton or Kerry alone or together. It will take years, it will take money and it will take a miracle and none of that reflect on Kerry or Clinton or the Dem party.

Stop being so ungrateful to the bipartisan coalitions that brought us such wonders!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We lost because of values, so we must abandon the few we have remaining.

I left out "Daschle and Gephardt were strong oppostion leaders."

Probably enough to get me labeled a freeper.

One must toe the party line and participate in groupthink with the passion of a true believer.

How many nonsensical non sequiturs will we have lined up while you are pretending to make a cogent argument?

You tell me: what is gained from savaging our own?

The knee-jerk party line rationalizations that "Clinton was great president.." and "We lost because of fraud.." are ostrichlike avoidance of the obvious.

As for what is gained from "savaging our own"..I see it as an attempt to get the ostriches to pull their head out of the sand and see what the Democratic Party has become. Namely, little more than a decrepit instution that is dying because of it's own willingness to abandon it's principles in the unfulfilled promise of winning by pandering.

Why can't you deal with these realities?

"Clinton WAS a great president.." Your evaluation of what makes a "great" president differs from mine and is subjective. In my opinion he was mediocre at best, and subverted the Democratic Party in the process by moving it to the right.

"..we DID lose because of fraud." "Fraud" most certainly. That the election was bought and sold to the highest bidder by an electoral system that only responds to money, I agree. If, as I think you are, referring to "voter fraud", I disagree. There is some anecdotal evidence of such on both sides but I don't believe it amounts to much. But, get back to me when it's proven and the election is overturned and I will happily eat my words. I see the "voter fraud" outcry as a distraction from what really ails the Democratic Party.

Only those who are separated from reality via brainwashing and propoganda see voter fraud as a "distraction."

As for Clinton being "mediocre", I'd like to know how you rate Bush in comparison.

If "voter fraud" is "reality" how do explain John Kerry's reluctance to use the term or pursue the claim? Is he also "brainwashed" and suffering from an inability to see (your) "reality".

Clinton was a mediocre president (at best). Bush is a disaster and has managed to pull almost even with Reagan, Nixon, and Andrew Johnson as the worst presidents this country has had to endure.

If you are willing to look the other way while the "moderates" in the party lead it to and even more de facto merge with the Republicans and their capitalist masters in the name of "party loyalty" and quashing dissent then more power to you. But, do expect resistance.

or Kerry? It's not their fault that the republicans are corrupt, lying, vote stealing thieves.

Funny how none of these words are remotely associated with Kerry or Clinton--they roll off the tongue for Bush--and yet all the bashing is targeted at them. Seems to me the bashing is misguided.

If you will look on other threads, you will see that I "bash" the boob-in-chief much more heartily than I do Clinton or Kerry (both of whom I voted for).

But, I'm much more concerned about the state of the world under attack by America than I am with Clinton's or Kerry's reputations.

The one force that can, at least, curtail some of that threat is the Democratic Party. Alas, it has been so eager to "win" elections that it has, instead of opposing Bush's actions, either endorsed or or accepted them as "popular" and therefore unassailable as a whole. "Welfare Reform", Nafta, No Child Left Behind, the IWR vote, etc. And, now Reid cozying up to Bush and calling for "bipartisanship".

I've been a Democrat for a long time. My nose is more than a little sore from voting for Democrats that continually sell out the principles that I believe in, in the name of "electability".

tell us up with what you will not put.

:eyes:

There is no way that anonymous left wing sniping at a statesman can mean diddly shit to anyone.

We don't have to glorify our leaders, but to turn on them is pointless ... it's only purpose seems to be to vindicate oneself from not having control over such a disappointing loss. I keep reading these "I never liked Kerry anyway" threads ... and it is frustrating and counterproductive. If you have legitimate gripes, by all means, express them! But be a bit thoughtful in the language you choose - otherwise it just becomes a great big "I told you so" and no one really wants to hear it. Offer opinions, suggestions, resolutions, but this nastiness really needs to go. Not everyone here is going to have the same ideals, but isn't that the beauty of it? I come here to learn and consider different points of view, but when the level of discourse disintegrates into finger pointing and name calling ... oh, and the condescension - eeek ... I seriously can't help but think "This is exactly what is wrong with our party". I just don't understand how people can be so fickle. I don't agree with Clinton or Kerry 100% - but just because I find a chink in their armor - doesn't mean I have to go for the kill.

Personally, I think Clinton is an interesting person who happens to be an amazing politician ... where Kerry is an amazing person who is at a bit of a disadvantage as a politician. They represent each of the ways I regard my leaders: One is a politician who happens to be a man, the other a man who happens to be a politician. This guides my expectations, but both types are necessary in the political system. Same with my senators - Arlen Specter (the career politician) who sometimes "blows in the wind", but is accomplished and best represents my interests (how sad) compared to Santorum, who has true conviction and really believes the shit he spouts. I detest Santorum's views, but I admire the fact that you know what you are getting. I'm never sure about Specter.

Back to the point. The bashing really does need to stop. We all have a place here - and I hope that we remain critical thinkers, but let us be careful not to bogged down in regret. We are progressives after all ... we need to quit the harping and look forward.

Thank you for the post.

I too come here to learn and when I get hit in the face at every turn with bashing, from the front page no less, it gets to be annoying to say the least. Then when you look at the content of these bash threads you see they are usually populated with one or two people who play tag to keep them going thus keeping them on the front page. It's so obvious that there's more to the bashing than there appears to be at first glance IMHO.

There is room for disagreement, but not for contrived bashing. I don't have a solution for getting rid of the latter so, I just have to vent here and hope that it draws people away from the distractions.

and an equal number who resort to bullying to make a point. There are those who make incredibly base arguments and those who argue at such a level that is difficult to keep up. We need, above all else, to respect each other ... and that means rising above the negative. Sometimes it is as simple as a slight change of tone. I guess I'm realizing that not everything here has to be a fight. Our biggest problem as a party, is that we do see shades of grey (our greatest asset) ... but sometimes we have to back up a bit and see the big picture. We're so busy arguing the details. We have a relatively common goal that spans the spectrum. That is what we should focus on. I don't know - it's like an impressionist painting ... each dot has importance and effects the whole, but if you stand too close for too long ... you're bound to miss the beauty of what is being created. Move a dot, and the whole picture changes.

I'm regressing, and probably off the subject. I'm just saying in my overly elaborate and tangential way ... that I'm with you. :)

I don't know why I go into those threads anyway. They just threaten me w/ a brain aneurysm.

Yes, bush sucks, but dems MUST offer rational, positive alternatives; and offer them with a messenger who is strong, credible, moral, and stands on PRINCIPLE, not on ABB. Until they do that, it really doesn't matter how loudly they scream about Bush. Oh and, until they get control of the voting process, nothing else matters.

:shrug:

.

We can make changes to our own party now. Our leadership has failed in the last three major elections by pursuing some enigmatic "moderate" vote that never seems to materialize. It's time to fire the incompetent panderers and fucking stand up. Clinton started the DLC, and Kerry played their line. Fuck them both for steering us into loss yet again.

That kind of thinking would have made the anti-Viet Nam war protests irrelevant. History shows otherwise.

Even Nixon, in his memoirs, said that those protests prevented him from nuking North Viet Nam.

Before we can protest effectively, we have to remove our ineffective leadership.

Obviously, deconstructing why we didn't win this election is mandatory. Thoughtful, intelligent analysis of Kerry post-election is critical to our chances in 2008. I have been intrigued with the few intelligent critiques of how Clinton's Lewinsky/personal morality "problems" may have affected Kerry's chances for winning in 2004. It's something I hadn't thought about during the campaign.

Personally, I think Clinton is and always will be one of our Democratic heroes and legends. Just a glimpse of him on TV or in a photo, and I long with all of my heart for him to be our president again. It's an instantaneous feeling.

To me, John Kerry was a terrific candidate. I saw him on C-SPAN the other day speaking on the Senate floor and I was reminded all over again why I thought so - he is smart, knows the issues backwards and forward, is on the right side of all of the issues I hold dear (health care, children's issues, reproductive rights for children. the environment, etc.) - he has and always will be a champion for these causes, he is a moral and ethical man - not a blemish or stain on him. It's a travesty that Bush was able to make the flip-flop label stick and also tarnish his Viet Nam record. He effectively made this great man look small and ineffective in the mind of many voters.

Seriously.

artificially feed them to keep them in your face. I've been seeing these threads for days and I'd like to read something else thankyouverymuch. As for you, if you don't like this thread, follow your own advice. Seriously.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are some links within this one if you are really interested and not just here to be a smartass.

We've just lost the most important election in our lifetimes. I can't blame loyal, disheartened members for blowing off steam. A good amount of finger pointing, scapegoating, and soul searching should be expected.

I'm just not sure why you believe this behavior is "suspicious"?

I guess thats what jumped out at me at your original post. You're rallying against divisiveness by being- well, divisive. It seemed kind of silly to me, so I thought I'd call you out on it.

about how being divisive in order to halt the division is futile. Along those lines, what do you think about how you called her "a board nanny"??

Although, if we weren't on DU, I might have said a whole lot worse.

My patience is frayed a lot these days. I'm only human.

and the hatred on DU is also excessive

The combination of the infiltrators on the board, the tediously misinformed, and the self-appointed arbiters of all things social discourse makes for a whole pile of mighty mediocrity, with most diverted by whatever bright shiny object, or crowd-goading comment that floats by at any given moment.

I see someone said there were links in the thread, but I am having trouble finding them.

Please post one.

I frequently criticize the DLC and its founders, including Clinton. They have allowed the corporations to rule our country because of their corporate funding....do you consider that bashing.

Please post some links.

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2727447&mesg_id=2727447

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2726030&mesg_id=2726030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2723370&mesg_id=2723370

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...