Edwards and Kerry are right, positive message is best

The Democrats should run on a positive message, not an angry negative message like a certain candidate is doing. That won't win in a general election, and I don't think it will end up winning the nomination in the end either. This message only appeals to a certain core group of support, and then it starts to alienate other supporters of other candidates. As the candidates start to withdraw, their supporters will gravitate to those candidates with a positive message. Watch and see.

Hope is something that Bush has failed to give this country. Hope requires leadership and vision, Things that Bush does not have.

... their campaigns are doing so well.

...are going to find that their support was an inch deep and a mile wide. The candidates who are building up their campaigns on defining their OWN character and ideas are going to find that their support is a mile deep and will get wider and wider on a strong foundation of committed support which can actually win a general election...like Clinton did in 91 and 92.

change the country once elected, like a certain candidate is doing. Equivocating and voting against your base constituencies is not having a "positive message", it's being a weak leader.

better place that is based on ideas he's putting forward right now (and not on qualities you are projecting on him)?

-roll back the 2nd biggest mistake * made (i.e. the tax cut), use that to finance states aid among other things
-86 Billion dollar health plan to cover almost all americans
plan (5 year plan I believe, not certain) to balance the budget and -erase the deficits shrub has saddled us with that will hurt our economy in the long run
-increase funding for education
-have a coherent foreign policy based on using multilateral institutions that have worked to solve problems in hotspots in the past

these are a few, i'm at work, but i think you get the idea, and instead of having your knee-jerk "Dean is angry" response every time you see something about him, why don't you listen to one of his speeches or check his site out and you will actually discover that the main part of his message is about how he is going to change the country. a little righteous anger added to that in this day and age is, IMHO, a beautiful thing.

What I hear is that Dean will balance the budget and the good times will roll. But, to me, Dean's a guy who doesn't have a problem with the direction money flows in America. His education plan is subsidized profits for Wall St, and he didn't have a problem with the 87 bil, and he likes energy deregulation. He seems to be for social spending, but demures when it comes to addressing whether that spending ends up as profit in the hands of a private industry down the road.

It's just a feeling I have, and I coudl be wrong. But I don't think balancing budgets and flowing wealth from the middle class to Wall St is going to solve America's problems. It's slightly Hooverian.

And let's pretend that the system isn't broken, and let's pretend that a good majority of the American people AREN'T pissed to the hilt about losing jobs, healthcare, education, and civil liberties.

And then, just for kicks, let's pretend that the Dems didn't fuck up 2002 by playing nice-nice with the GOP, and do it ONE MORE TIME ...

That'll get a Dem elected... :eyesroll:


:hippie:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=224328

Kerry's running such a positive campaign that he has to attack two Democrats at a time, just because he's afraid of what Rove might say or do.

attacking the other candidates. Someone notify KaroakeKarlton!!

pot, meet kettle

Of course the candidates should make their differences on issues known! Kerry is against repealing all the taxes, why should he not draw this distinction??

If your message is only about how bad your opponent is, then the opponent might simply drop out (like LBJ -- which would mean that, when they get an opponent who can beat you, your only option is to shoot him or her, like they did to RFK).

If your message is only about how bad a war is, then your opponent will simply tell you about his plans to end the draft and his secret plan to end the war, as Nixon did to defeat McGovern in ’72, at a time when there was way more hostility to the war than there is now.

The bottom line is that when you aren't making an argument about the things that are within your control – i.e., yourself and your own ideas -- even if your argument starts to work, because you aren't in control of the thing that is at the center of your argument, you don't have control at all.

Your opponent will simply redefine the thing upon which you've defined yourself, and, therefore, redefine you.

This is what the Democrats did in NJ when they ran Lautenberg against a Republican who ignorantly defined himself ONLY in terms of the Democratic incumbent.

This is why successful campaigns are always about defining yourself, and controlling the perception of yourself and your ideas. Your own identity is your castle and it's the easiest thing to defend. Obviously, you aren't always to control your own castle -- Gore did an awful job of defining himself. The Republicans definitely broke down the ramparts and occupied Gore's character. But Gore would have had an even harder time if he decided to abandon his castle from the outset and merely talk about the Bush family day and night without even trying to define himself at all.

This debate over positive messages and attacking, and defining yourself in terms of your own ideas and character rather than in terms of your opponent’s ideas, actions and character, is CAMPAIGNING 101. It is the basics of campaigning. It's amazing to me that in 2003 with a century of modern political history behind us, candidates are compelled by the idiocy of their opponents to stand up and remind their opponents what productive, intelligent, mutually beneficial campaigning looks like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=224328

*snicker*

Today's lesson: IRONY.

another Dean-bashing thread brought to you by yet another supporter of a Dean-bashing candidate?

So anything that doesn't praise Dean is Dean-bashing? Give me a break. Not everyone thinks Dean is a savior.

Kerry and Edwards are right, the Democrats should run on a positive message, that is the topic.

But I know when someone's been on their knees too long to realize that what is coming out of their mouths (Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry and Gephardt) is shit, simply because they've lost their sense of smell in the Senate.

Time to get off those knees, gentlemen. Stand up, grow a spine, and stop being afraid of what Rove and company will do.

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

and you should know that you're getting into DU stalking territory there. Follow me to another thread and make the same comments. I dare yah.

BTW, you've done nothing but post snide, critical comments at DU posters since I first saw you arrive. You're the last person who should be talking about critical comments from anyone here on DU.

You covered "attack the critics", but said nothing about how you completely fail to address the issue.

When I go into a pet store, I shy away from talking to parrots, because there's nothing like talking to yourself when the being in front of you keeps on saying the same thing over and over and over.

Usually, when I talk to people online, I don't talk to those who have the msging habits of a bot either.

and share almos the identical format (often invoking the term "poopiehead").

S. is making a very astute, reasonable point about that rhetorical style. It's sort of hypocritical to endorse the sloganeering strap-line endorsements of Dean but criticize the equal, logical and obvious response to those posts, which is to point out exactly what they are doing every time they appear.

Look up "thread stalking" in the DU rules, and get back to me, ok? That's all Sangh0 is doing to my posts today.

This doesn't involve you, or Dean or any other candidate at this point. So back away...please.

they appear to be responsive to the issues raised in the posts to which they're responding.

My understanding of stalking is that it is when you follow people around and raise issues NOT raised by the post to which you're responding.

You can't be repetitive yourself, or engage in a certain rhetorical style and then claim that the response that would logically follow is stalking.

Do you think sangh0's posts are non-responsive?

You've just claimed that they're repetitive. But so are the posts they follow.

I think funding jobs, education and healthcare is TOTALLY positive.

I think that representing the Democratic Wing of the Democratic party is positive.

So, I guess I don't see Dean as negative. I think he has a strong, clear, positive message, and I share it as often as I can.

However, I am interested in hearing Kerry and Edwards' messages as well. I'll take all the positivity I can get.

Would someone please post Kerry and Edwards' positive messages? Or are they just talking about messages instead of presenting the message?

His meta-message is about middle class opportunity. It's about unburdening the people who create all that wealth that is flowing straight to the top thanks to a regressive tax code and crippling debt which is fascilitated by crappy public policy. He's about making sure that everyone has a chance to achieve their fullest potential and that they're rewarded justly for their efforts along the way. He's about the idea that we're all better off if the least among us is better off.

Your snide little smartass crack was barely veiled. if you were actually addressing the substance of a positive message, there would've been some content in your remark. I love it, other campaigns major focus is bashing Dean for not having a positive message? That is ludicrous.

like going in Clark threads and Kerry threads all the time to trash them is not helping the candidate Dean.

You know, in a way it is a reflection of the Dean campaign, constantly trashing the other Democrats while building up yourself. This strategy is deeply flawed, watch and see.

The number of attacks on Clark and Kerry PALE to those launched against Dean in an obsessive manner here on DU. That's the simple truth. I can only surmise that you are being willfully blind, as there is no way you'd be dishonest.

Right?

What's more positive than returning the allegiance of the govt to the people?

This is incredible! I can honestly say I don't know where to begin!

Do I say, "maybe Kerry's supporters here should take note, practice what he preaches?"

I mean, what a vague thing to say! From a guy with the infamous "You might be Howard Dean if" list.

I'm flabbergasted! Is Kerry admitting that Clark will win, since he's the only one who's tried to stay consistently positive?

And I don't think Kerry meant what you suggested.

But I would not be overly surprised if Clark or Edwards ends up winning in the end.

with Edwards coming in second on that note. Kerry is getting shrill and nasty, which is not surprising as he and Gep feel they are entitled to the nomination.

Clark continues to be a class act. There, now note that in your "Deanie Meanie" log.

I don't think it'll happen for Edwards, but the two have been the least aggressive.

Why can't Dean's supporters defend their man instead of attacking the others?

And:

Having expanded health insurance
Restored foreign relations
Expanded opportunities for a college education
Restoring environmental protections
Balancing the budget/creating jobs
etc???
Restoring our civil liberties

YUP, Sounds pretty negative to me :eyes:

Vote for me!

Edwards positive message: I'm the son of a millworker! Vote for me!

from another Dean supporter

The only issue here is with the irony deficient.

And point to the post please.....unless you made it up, in which case, we accept your apology.

Will Kerry start talking about Kerry soon? Will Edwards get braver than "Saddam being gone is a good thing"?

That might help.

Julie