O.K. this will get me flamed, but I'm getting worried about something

This isn't to single out Dean because every candidate has done it. But watching Hardball last night (which by the way I thought was one of Dean's best performances yet) I just couldn't help noticing that the proportion of saying what Bush was doing WRONG to saying what we (meaning any of the democrats) would do RIGHT was very out of whack. I counted 3 questions where he didn't answer the question with anything other than what Bush was doing wrong when the questions were specifically "What would YOU do...." questions. I've seen Clark do this as well as Kerry and every other candidate and I'm worried that it's going to take it's toll in the long run.

Now I understand that this fires up the base, and I understand that every single solitary last bit of it is 110% true. I'm not arguing with that nor am I saying that we shouldn't have any attack politics.

But I just know waaaaay too many people who are moderate, swing voters who don't even particularly like Bush, but who 1)Don't like attack politics and 2)Need a reason to vote for someone not against someone else.

So if most of the answers our candidates give are what Bush is doing WRONG rather than what he/she would do RIGHT, or even if every answer is prefaced with the former, I'm just really worried this is going to turn a lot of people off. I hear the gripe so many times that it's easy for the democrats to complain and bash but they don't offer any alternatives. And watching Hardball and the recent debates with that set of glasses on, I can see where people think that way.

So flame away. I hope I'm not right, but watching more and more interviews and debates and everything else I'm getting a sinking feeling.

When the general election comes, you can bet that the Democratic nominee will have all sorts of positive things to propose.

I really do. I just hope by that point not too much damage is done. I don't remember the Republican primary of 2000 being this based on anti-Clinton sentiment even. I could be wrong and just very skittish at this point, but who knows. I'm open for anything, just not optimistic.

you'll hear a lot of--"we all know how wrong this and that were. But now's the time to talk about solving those problems, something the Bush administration can't seem to do..."

Watch out for Christmas--as the troops sit there in dire straits thousands of miles from home, the attacks on Bush will get thicker and thicker and only break for Christmas day itself.

AS THEY SHOULD!

BUSH
BRING THE TROOPS HOME AND TAKE AWAY A DEM CAMPAIGN ISSUE, PLEASE!

You're right in that they are doing the things it takes to fire up the base, throwing out the red-meat as it were. But the nominee will need to change his/her tune once it becomes clear they will be the nominee. No one's gonna vote for someone who says "Vote for me because I'm not him/her."

As a former swing voter...in between leaving the pugs on my way to the Dems...your concerns are right on the button. Constant bush bashing turns voters, especially swing voters off.

Dean will not attract the swing voters nor the moderately-conservative to conservative Dems. My fear is that if Dean gets the nod those voters will stay home for the general election. As a precinct delegate I have spoken with many, many Republican neighbors who want shrub out but do not see Dean as a candidate they could vote for.

this election is about taking our democracy back...i would vote for leiberman if that was the only choice i had besides bush...i can't believe that anyone who is paying the least bit of attention would stay home and decide not to decide in this election...i really am an ABB person because if we don't get him out of that house we will continue lose all that we cherish...if mickey mouse gets the nod from the democratic party, i will send money and work my tail off to get him elected

against Bush but don't like Dean. They're not ABB, they're Republicans who would defect from the GOP to vote Bush out IF they like the Democratic nominee.

The corporate media has idolized Bu$h. We NEED to take the shine off him & expose him for the crook and killer he is.

The other half -- the positive things we'd do is also important. But the Rethugs have run for years on nothing but negative campaigning, helped by a compliant media. In 2000, Bu$h & co. said little-to-nothing about what they'd do, but they and especially their tame media did an excellent job of sliming Gore. And it worked -- it made the election close enough for them to steal it.

We'd better hit the Rethugs hard. Because they WILL slime our candidate -- whoever he is. With all the slime that their $250 million campaign budget can buy and all the slime that the corporate whore media can invent. And if our candidate is slimed, while Bu$h-the-criminal looks clean & pure, we will LOSE.

Yes, we need positive. But we need negative -- i.e. the truth about Bu$h-the-criminal -- even more.

or vision. Many complained in 2002 that there was no ALTERNATIVE VISION.

Sorry, but Dean specializes in bashing Junior & fellow Democrats and not talking about his actual SPECIFIC POLICIES.

in general when politicians never answer give a direct answer to a direct question.

They all have done it one time or another

The first message to be delivered is the message about what is wrong. We are the only ones who are going to deliver it. We need to thoroughly understand what is actually happening now before we debate specifics what may happen in ther future.

Bush needs to be put on the spot to defend his actions and policies. Once he owns his policies by acknowledging and defending them instead of weaseling, then it will be time to go with the positive message of how to solve the problems.

The moderator on one of the debates wanted to ask candidates what they would do differently-that changes the terms of this stage of the debate to a theoretical future instead of an actual present and gets Bush off the hook.

There is a big exception to the above: we should always talk up our country and our people in broad, postive terms. Our country and our people are huge positives, our current leadership is dragging us down.

People in thhe US need to and should feel good about themselves.
We are currently following bad leadership and that is what is hurting us.

especially now that Bush is campaigning on the suggestion that those who don't support him are with the terrorists or some such nonsense. There has not been any lack of policy proposals from any of the Dems discussing how they would operate differently, but Tweety's program isn't the ideal venue. There was a presentation on C-Span this past weekend with Dean and Rob Reiner, where Dean discussed the specifics of education and children.

I do note the disclaimer in your post and a complaint about a somewhat petty issue---all following the same typical pattern of a feasibly orchestrated effort to blast away at Dean.

Who needs Republicans?

That no matter how many caveats I put in a post saying that ALL the candidates do this, and how I actually LIKED Dean's appearance last night in so many other ways, that it would still get accussed of being a Dean blast?

Pathetic.

to it, when you could have said something constructive if you were so impressed?

Dean has had fantastic endorsements and they barely get a passing mention, but Jesse Jackson makes a complimentary reference about Clark in an essay and it is earth shattering.

:shrug:

Because it's something I worry about in all our candidates. Last nights Hardball was the most recent example. If you look at any of the other Hardball threads on the subject of Dean's appearance you would have seen many of the complimentary things I said. He seemed much more relaxed and affable and funny that I've seen him in any other appearance. And on other questions he was much more direct.

And you are right. Why do we need Republicans when we have our own blindly devoted flocks of people who refuse to accept any criticism whatsoever about their beloved candidate as legitimate.

but it will be used by those who have their own agenda other than legitimate criticism.

this is the ONE of the places you do not want to give specifics other than Bush is bad, BECAUSE riteards would no doubt TWIST what he said, then or later when he wasn't there. Dean is far more specific on public radio. and he should bash bush and get some edumication to the twits who watch fux.

Dean says Yes, and then rather than present what HIS vision of our place in the world he blathered on about Junior...

and straight to the bash bush stuff.

asked if he'd honor the spending loimits in the primaries

straight to bush and the general.

there comes a point where a pattern of bush bahing to duck hard questions becomes an issue.

Tweety speedballs zingers at his "interviewees" and then interrupts if the answer takes more than ten seconds. How is a candidate (any candidate) to elucidate policy positions in any meaningful way in that milieu. It's just not possible. These are "fluff" interviews on tabloid TV. They are necessary, apparently, given the bizarre land in which we live. Its the time for one liners and zingers to throw back at the BirdBrain.

For those wanting to know what the candidates think in more detail and to find out what their plans and policies are, go to their websites. Dean's is quite complete on the issues you may be interested in. It can't be communicated in ten seconds. It takes an hour or two of reading. Most of the public doesn't want to hear it or think about it or deal with it. Those who do, can, but don't expect to hear it on TabloidTV.

I know what Dean's positions are. I've been to the website. I've donated money to his campaign.

This is kind of what I'm talking about. Most people don't have the time or the patience to do research on candidates like we choose to. So if all they get are the snippets and the snippets are negative first and positive as a secondary, then all the websites in the world aren't going to make a difference.

People who watch Tweety for CONTENT are the problem. Policy positions are difficult if not impossible to do in snippets. Attacks are doable in snippets.

I think your post proposes something near impossible. For instance, think about the enemy.....do they propose affirmative policy positions on TabloidTV? No. They attack "liberalcommieDemQueers" and malign the left as a whole as being unamerican. Unfortunately, it works. The TabloidTV forum is no good for thoughtful policy communication.

I think Edwards has done the best job of detailing plans for what he would do in response to identified problems. My own view is that the plans are excellent, and I have heard very little criticism of those plans. He responds to off-the-cuff questions well too.

Yet to date, he has not attracted nearly the media interest that Dean and Clark have, nor have his poll results been as strong as theirs and even Lieberman's, with limited exceptions (e.g., South Carolina).

Is it possible that the front-running candidates have correctly perceived that people would rather hear why they should NOT support Bush at this point, that change is scary during these times so they simply want to find a candidate that they "like" and makes them feel secure, and that they will "turn off" those who try to explain new plans?

is a positive in my eyes. Didn't we want someone to stand up to Bush? Didn't we complain edlessly about spineless Dems in pink tutus who were advised not to criticize Bush and to line up behind him? Don't we want someone to make it shoockingly clear that this spoiled, arrogant punk is incompetent and clueless? I say go for it and speak to it with confidence and defiance.

It only makes sense for any candidate to tell voters how he would do things different (better) then Bush.

So for instance instead of just saying that the Patriot Act is fascist (or something that amounts to that), a candidate could say that he will work to repeal the Patriot Act and bring back the 4th amendment. That probably should be accompanied by an explanation about how removing civil rights is not helping to counter terrorism (since it is not so that a significant number of terrorists are in fact American citizens), but rather that it is a sign the terrorists are winning; that in this way we are losing the very liberties that we're supposed to be fighting for.

Two things are in play here, first, for the most part Clark is running against Bush, not the other Democrats. Word for word, other than Dean, none of the other Democrat candidates has had LESS to say about his opponents than Clark (except maybe Ambassador Bruan). His strategy is to justify his candidacy in terms of the existing policy, not in terms of the competition.

Second, it is hard to overestimate the advantages Bush has going into this election. Even if it is not ultimately the best tactic to take within the primary structure, somebody has to be hammering at the incumbent if only to get coverage in the papers. While it seems like a lot of people are talking about this stuff, that is our perception, not that of the general public. More people know about Michael Jackson and Kobe than Wes Clark or Howard Dean.

The democrats have offered and are offering alternatives to what the current administration is doing but they cannot be discussed in a vaccuum. If I would deal with Iraq differently from the way Bush is fumbling it, I can't do that without referring to what Bush has done.

When the primaries are over and we have one candidate he (or she) will benefit from all the work that has been done during this period to undermine the invulnerability of SuperBush.

More than 50% of Americans believe Bush* is doing a good job in Iraq (foreign policy), most of them will be immune to any Dem's ideas to do it better - as long as they have that opinion - why change horses, etc.

The media will not question Bush* policy on their own - that's not their job. But they will report attacks by prominent Dems that call into question that policy - because that is news.

With so many Dem candidates, that can become a steady drumbeat of criticism that will change people's minds. Not the logic of it necessarily, but the volume and continuous questioning and criticizing - it will simply become part of the political reality.