Deleted message

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

The man is one of the good guys in the long run.

Look at his voting record.

I would vote for him in a heartbeat if he had run a spirited campaign worthy of his record and stature.

Just because he is not my current candidate of choice does not mean I feel the need to rip him down.

just to let you know there are actually some of us out here who believe so.

liberal talk radio doesn't work...

we are too interested in being fair and seeing the other side of every argument.

it does not lead to compelling entertainment.

and in a broader sense I agree with Clinton's comment about "Strong and Wrong".

enemy is, and IT IS NOT OURSELVES!

We need to unite behind the nomminee, yes even if it's Lieberman.

If the Democrats would unite behind their BASE issues and accept
certain compromises then we could actually win next next year.

And yes, this is why Liberal Talk Radio will not succeed. If we are to succeed then we must not be "liberal" and allow disenting viewpoints our talk shows but must promote our ideology. We must give NOTHING to our opponents, just tell them to "F-Off"!

We can spin soundbites as well as any wingnut:).

you do your cause proud. If only it were a pride-worthy cause.

Julie

in my mind, and Kerry has been on the mark lately.

because I didn't hear or read what he said but I'm always on the side of any candidate pointing out these people as Kerry did.

still supporting him?

The Dem party tries to appeal to so many moderates that it really doesn't motivate anyone to support them. I'm almost positive that if the Dems took a STRONG stand on the environment, animal rights, gay marriage, drugs, the death penalty, civil rights, poverty, and education that there would be some die hard supporters coming out the woodworks to vote. Sure, some moderates would be alienated, but we'd have a loyal and dedicated base, just like the Republicans do.

They win because their base doesn't lose sight of the bigger picture and get all worked up over every single little issue of ideological purity.

You could get the vote of every self identified liberal in the country and without some concessions to the centrists or moderates we will lose every single time.

thanks

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

I have no animus towards Kerry, even though he has repeatedly attacked my preferred Candidate. My candidate has sometimes responded in kind, though I wish he hadn't.

I think Kerry would be a strong nominee against Bush, and - should he win the nomination - I would have few reservations about voting for him. I am not familiar with his comments yesterday, but from the sounds of them, they are definitely something to applaud.

Kudos to Kerry!

Let's get down to brass tacks.

Maybe some are praising him despite the facts. Maybe some are rightfully praising him. Maybe some ARE trying to bring him down any way possible. Maybe others have trouble seeing the good considering the facts.

Who are you or anyone else to determine what's in a person's mind when they post? Some are obvious. We all know who they are. But I wasn't going to jump out and praise Kerry for something he was supposed to be doing all along. I don't praise the mailman for bringing me mail.

Kerry's latest triumph comes at the expense of those who have suffered because he among others voted for the patriot act. You have to understand context. Yeah, good for Kerry to slam the people we need to slam. Too bad it comes off as hollow considering his vote.

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

Kerry's campaign is in the toilet and he will never be president, so why waste energy on him?

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

Too often these discussions are reductive. We need to see shades of gray in order to make clear, intelligent evaluations.

I praised Kerry for doing the right thing, but this in no way prevents deserved criticism at some other moment.

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

Voice my agreement with the candidate and support for those particular statements, but remain critical.

Voice my agreement with the candidate and support for those particular statements, but remain critical.

Just what is it that people are critical about (not just durutti)?

Honestly, I've seen a lot of folks choosing a "favorite" because of style. The candidate is able to say what's on his mind without mincing too many words. Or the candidate is perceived as being able to beat you-know-who. So, what makes Dean supporters, for instance, choose Dean over Kerry, for instance? Is it something he has actually taken a stand on that Kerry hasn't or that Kerry took what you think was the wrong stand, or is it more the perception that Dean won't take any guff from you-know-who?

And what about Dennis? To me, at least, he is the candidate who is saying all the right things and whose record includes all the right stuff. I would think that progressive Democrats would be out rooting for Dennis. To me, he's a lot like Paul Wellstone.

So, are Democrats standing behind the guy who can beat you-know-who, or are they standing behind the guy who stands for them? Y'know, I think Dennis can beat you-know-who. I think he's totally honest and principled and those qualities can draw voters from both sides of the aisle.

I am a Dean supporter, but try to reply when another candidate does something positive for us DEMS. Good for Kerry, I am glad he is on our side and fighting the good fight.

I wasn't online much yesterday so I missed the Kerry thread. When ANY candidate hits it out of the ballpark, as Kerry did in this speech, I try to take time to respond positively.

Excellent points in this speech, Senator Kerry.

the problem is, there's a diversity of opinion on just how the Dems handle this nomination and the following election...I think it denotes just how weak the field is that there's little consensus on who will be the nominee

...and punish bad actions. Judge actions, not people.

And it's a proven fact that it is more effective in terms of creating positive change to reward positive behavior than it is to punish negative behavior. Every time someone praises someone for doing the right thing, they are working efficiently toward positive change.

This one's going back to the first page. :kick:

He is doing this in the 11th hour and that will bring resentment whether justified or not. Before the IRAQ war and learning about the Orwellian Patriot Act KERRY voted for without reading, he was my 1# choice. Who signs a contract without reading it? And if they dared questioned his Patriotism he should have brought out his war medals and said show me yours. If KERRY stood up to Bush in the beginning do you think Clark would be in the race now?

Initially he was my guy and I still have a soft spot for him.

I see alot of the "if you aint with us, you're agin us" sentiment creeping into the Democratic rivalries. I realize this is largely an attempt to pull us back to center, to keep our eyes on the prize. The prize is Bush and his crew out of the White House.

But here is what has been nagging me as of late. In our rush to get ABB, what if we end up with a similar executive branch, the only difference being a donkey rather than an elephant on all the buttons?

Let's look at the reality here.

* The vast majority of Democrats in congress (and several of the Dem candidates for prsident) voted for IWR.

* The vast majority of Democrats in congress voted FOR the Patriot Act, both I and II.

* The Democratic leadership now has a reputation of rolling over like the house dog for big business, special interests and especially for Republican resolve.

Have we gained anything other than a switch in party name if we pull behind a Dem candidate who fits any, or several of the character points listed above?

"outside agitators".

especially with all the rhetoric from the religious right claiming Christian bashing from the overwhelming number of atheist on these DU boards. Which is hogwash!

I'd like to see a Reglious Forum by itself and reglious opinions kept off of the GD forum.

his opinion in the Senate? To be fair here, I don't have his exact votes on giving Bush his whole cabinet which most Dems did even when Jeffords defected.

However it's a legitimate avenue of attack on Kerry that NOW he complains but what was he doing then? And, it's up to Kerry supporters to find how he voted and post to those of us who question his "Johnny Come Lately" attack on the people he may have voted on.

That's not bashing Kerry, that's saying that my recollection is that Kerry has mostly supported Bush like Daschle and Lieberman and Edwards.

So, it's a legit complaint, to me. The Repugs could slam him back if their research shows he supported any of Bush's crew.

On EDIT: He did NOT support Asscroft:
Quote from "Princeton Review." (Some RW Coulter wannabe wrote this screed, but at least it shows Kerry didn't support Asscrof.)
Now we are seeing the beginnings of a new Borking, against Sen. John Ashcroft, President-elect George W. Bush's nominee for attorney general. The same liberal groups have become apoplectic. How dare a conservative president nominate a conservative attorney general? Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) whined that Ashcroft was "a divisive, not unifying nomination," even though Bush "has said he is a uniter not a divider."