Behind many of the communications in this forum, I see fear.

No matter the candidate that we are debating, behind the hostility and behind the barbs is a fear of four more years.

Threads about Rove are less filled with resentment and awe of his sheer manipulative capabilities but fear.

Fear doesn't handle anything about tomorrow, it robs you of your strength in the present.

The daily Democrat threads have been helpful in that they underscore that which is supportable in each of the Dem candidates. I have listed them below.

Find what you can in them that would allow you (no matter your positions, principles or other party affiliation) to support the individual were he or she to win the nomination.

Confront your fear that they might win with your intellect.

Confront your fear that Bush might win with you own commitment that he not.
Confront your fear.

Daily Democrat: a positive discussion of John Edwards
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=866821


Daily Democrat: a positive discussion about Joe Lieberman

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=866819

Daily Democrat: A positive discussion about Dennis Kucinich
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=857988

Daily Democrat: A positive discussion about Howard Dean
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=857991

Daily Democrat: A positive discussion about John Kerry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=849152

Daily Democrat: A positive discussion about Wesley Clark
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=849156

Daily Democrat: a positive discussion about Al Sharpton

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=843272

Daily Democrat: a positive discussion about Dick Gephardt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=843269

Daily Democrat: a positive discussion about Carol Moseley Braun
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=836458

Yes, scared spitless of what another 4 years of Bush* would do but totally courageous in our commitment to oust him and his corrupt group of thugs. As hard as it is for me to actually say I will be ABB I seriously doubt I will be able to do anything but vote for whoever our nominee is. That is as close as I can come at this point to joining that particular band wagon. Thank you for reminding us that fear can stimulate us now but determination can remove us of that fear.

I sense the fear too , that is why I stay out of this forum as a rule

fear is our friend. It creates determination and action.

If one is solely motivated by fear rather than a commitment to change, it alters one's communications.

on change being necessary to address it.

and it may well motivate some to action. But I have no fear, I act before fear becomes a factor. I face anything that I find that will produce fear, knock it to the ground with facts ank knowledge and render it useless.

I am not in any way advocating that people should never be afraide....but I am advocating that fear can paralyze people to the point where they CANNOT act. Just make sure you know what your looking at, and beat it with knowledge and determination. Otherwise, fear will rule your life.

O8)

or, not, I guess

you use it to motivate you to DO SOMETHING instead of letting it cripple you into inaction.

The best thing you can do for yourself as a person is to face your fears head on - confront them and then move past them.

I agree with you that I see a lot of fear underlying the behavior on DU right now. I'm as guilty as anyone of sometimes letting fear control my life. But what gives me hope is that so many of my fellow DUers seem to be taking action to do something about that fear that we'll be stuck with chimp for 4 more years.

Kudos to all who are actively working to keep it from happening...and to those who are not - get up off your butt and go out and do something, it'll make you feel better.

I think we have very good reason to fear and dread what will happen to our country if * gets 4 more.

Fear that the so-called activist base of this party will not wisen up and start thinking about winning until Bush and his successors are done chopping up all the gains that have been made. Four more years of Bush? I lived through 8 years of Reagan and the first four of this Bush. I can easily do it again. But what happens the next time? And the next time? This party does not have a big picture winning strategy, and it refuses to adopt one, instead lurching from candidate to candidate, issue to issue.

Ooooooooh! There's a war! I don't like this war, so I'm going to choose an anti-war candidate to express my displeasure -- and to hell with the consequences. The same thing happened in 1972 with McGovern, and 1968, when Johnson felt forced to withdraw from the primaries because of anti-war fervor. That's how we got Nixon. (And people in this party wonder why the country views us as soft on defense?)

Unless there's a huge setback in Iraq or with the economy, Bush is going to win. That's not pessimism or defeatism, that's just analyzing economic data and knowing historical voting patterns. The question becomes, now what? What are the best steps we can take now to ensure that we take back Congress, begin recapturing governorships, and be best positioned to win in 2008? A rational party would start making those plans, would at least have them in the back of its head while making its decisions. We ain't doing it.
And that scares and frustrates me.

We shouldn't be thinking in terms of 4 more years of Bush, but 10 more years of DeLay, 10+ more years of Frist (say hello to a potential President Frist), 20 more years of a right wing Supreme Court -- those are the things people need to be concerned with. Not who voted where on the Iraq War Resolution, which is small potatoes by comparison. But that's what's important to this party. They think about winning elections, we think about the IWR. And that scares me.

Frankly, I think the outright refusal of some to even HEAR the other side's message is more alarming. If you were right, we should have swept the midterms. If you were right we should not have lost the house in 96, senate seats in 2000 and the enate in 2002.

Please demonstrate in YEAR 2003 terms NOT 1968 terms what is so winning about dismissing all those morons in the base such as labor and teacher unions.

Did it work in 96? What about 2000? What about 2002? how do you explain Clelland?

It does not sound to me as though you think of winning elections. It sounds to me as though you think of mutiny in your own party. That is the effect of your post.

Please re-read my post. I was as against the war as anyone -- go back and read some of my posts back then. I hated it as a shamelessly immoral adventure in which thousands of people would be killed for no good reason. Opposing the war is fine. Choosing a candidate based on that issue alone is political suicide.

As for labor unions and the base, those aren't the people I'm suggesting need to be surgically removed -- they are this party. It's the so-called 'activists' who are the problem. Why do you think so many union members end up voting Republican? Because the Republicans have a strategy in place to appeal to those people based on issues other than economic interests. Our 'activists' block us from responding in kind, so we lose the support of a significant percentage of what should be our base. And then we lose.

The kind of people you see here who consider themselves True Democrats, but who suddenly see nothing wrong with the Confederate flag, would be one example.

Black people are, by the way, fairly conservative on a lot of social issues; they vote Democratic out of loyalty and because of economic interest, but if you knew the black community, you'd know that they find the activist mentality a little bit foolish as a rule.

Look, I'm not saying activism is bad -- it's quite obvious, in fact, that it's necessary. But Democrats have a shitty sub-set of activists right now (the kind of people who pushed McGovern on us; the kind of people who are pushing Dean on us: we have a war going on, and a loud group of people are shoving a guy with zero foreign experience down our throats?????) who refuse to change with the times, who refuse to accept the fact that the Republicans are, and have been for 30-odd years now, out-thinking them. Those people need to be pushed aside.

or, at least, represent racist interests

If that's not the case, how do you explain the black vote of 9 to 1 Democrat?

There's a difference. Republicans are against many things that are traditionally black interests -- affirmative action, for example. Is Bush a racist? Probably no more so than the average white guy. Are his policies and world view anti-black? Without a doubt.

Sounds to me like you probably mean most of DU - except the Clark people.



"Those people need to be pushed aside."


That's the message many of the Clark people send to the rest of us.

if you like the way the shoe fits, wear it. This has nothing directly to do with Clark, of course, but your inability to follow the actual thread of the discussion is a little bit disconcerting. So it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you were one of those activists. :shrug:

"But Democrats have a shitty sub-set of activists right now... the kind of people who are pushing Dean on us: we have a war going on, and a loud group of people are shoving a guy with zero foreign experience down our throats?????) who refuse to change with the times, who refuse to accept the fact that the Republicans are, and have been for 30-odd years now, out-thinking them. Those people need to be pushed aside. "


Sounded like the "actual thread of the discussion" was attacks on most of the rest of us - which is what I responded to...

That's not following the thread, but someone injecting one of their personal issues into a discussion where it doesn't belong.

... but I don't expect you to tailor your signature line and graphic to every message you write. Probably one of the reasons I don't bother with a signature line is that I'm afraid I'll wind up contradicting myself!

But getting back to your point, it seems to me that the fear is coming from the idea that it's so critical to defeat Bush and the perception that the 2004 election will be close - or even, G-d forbid, that Bush might win by a landslide. Some folks are worried that Democrats should choose just the candidate that can for sure beat the bejeezus out of Bush. Some folks are totally convinced that their candidate is the one and only person who will do that.

It's disturbing to all of us to see how popular Bush seems to be, even after all the lousy things he's been doing - not just with the war but with his dismantling of basically the entire New Deal. When are the citizens going to wake up?

Maybe what we should be doing now is calling up stations and demanding some serious media coverage of the stuff that's being covered up, stuff like in truthout.org, or failing that we should provide that information ourselves by writing letters to the editor or calling in local talk shows (with polite hosts). Or maybe you have ideas. I've found that I am a lot less panicky when I feel that I'm doing some small thing to contribute myself.

that has ZERO experience GOVERNING down our throat as well. YOur point is well taken about black families being socially conservative but being socially conservative where one's life is concerned and being DICTATORIALLY conservative where the personal freedoms of others are concerned is quite different.

The PRIMARY subset of activists in the DEM party are women, minorities (some not all) and labor. So far Dean has appealed to them better than some lifelong democrats...one must ask why?

I agree with some not all of your assessments but you do tend to GENERALIZE such as with the term "activist," thereby losing me and probably others with that.

that I have felt have been oppressed.

Women, gays, blacks, asians, nerds, you name it. I am no hero, I am just someone that cannot see people being stomped on. I don't like being stomped on, and I know that there are others that will not, or cannot fight...so I do.

I was once called a racist in the Army because a black soldier told me I didn't like him, 'because I'm black'. Yeah right. My answer to him, which was made for all in the area to hear was: "I couldn't care less about your color, I don't like you because you are an asshole. That is your choice, and my choice is to dislike you, just as i dislike ALL assholes. When you realize this, we'll get along till then, keep away from me by at least 100 meters"!

Took a while, and we never really became friends, but we DID come to an understanding and actually got along after about a month.

Point being, call it like you see it!

One other instance. I knew a guy who beat his wife once. I told him if that ever happened again, I'd make sure charges were pressed against him. He hit her again a couple of months later, and I kept my word and turned him in to the CO; before he went in to see the Co, I asked him where his mother lived, and he asked why? I told him that if there were others that believed that bashing women were hanging around, maybe they should pay his mother a visit. He went white as a sheet! (BTW, he got a BCD, and his wife divorced him).

O8)

are designed to appeal to the worst in people. They're designed to hide the fact that the GOP agenda is actually violently against most people's economic interest.

Support for Dean is not just about opposition to the war. That's Kucinich's turf. It's about opposition to Bushism and the elevation of Democratic values to completely replace it.

The Confederate Flag? States' Rights? Cutting social spending in pursuit of a balanced budget? A dubious commitment to Affirmative Action? What Democratic values is Dean planning on 'elevating?'

Civil rights.

How about Clark? What are his values?

on his stance on civil rights? Riiiiight. Dean doesn't have a plan for true universal healthcare -- Sharpton and Kucinich are the only people I'm aware of who do -- so why you put that down is a mystery. What is 'economic and tax justice?' Meaningless rhetoric. I've seen what exists of Dean's plans, and they are absolutely no more 'just' than the other candidates'; in fact, since he wants to rescind all of the tax cuts, even those for the poor and middle class, they are less 'just' as I would define the word.

which is something the other candidates seem to lack. I wish they were better at it. I really do. I believe organization is the key to winning this election.

You like to avoid talking about what Clark offers, don't you? Well, he's telegenic, anyway.

like a non-existent universal healthcare plan and 'economic and tax justice,' to 'talent for organization' a vague and meaningless phrase, which you can't be pinned down on. That you don't even know about your own candidate's healthcare plan, and keep shifting your reasons for supporting him, support my point: you picked Dean based on non-rational thinking. You don't even know what his healthcare plan is, yet it's supposed to be the centerpiece of his campaign?

The fact that you keep desperately trying to change the subject to Clark is simply evidence of how helpless you are when it comes to Dean. It makes him look that much more indefensible -- an impressive accomplishment, but not one to be proud of, to be sure.

Clark ain't a winner at this stage of the game, and I don't see how he's going to become one, unless the Clintons pull a lot of strings for him or some other miracle happens. But Dean keeps looking like a winner, and I want to bank on a Democratic winner. It's as simple as that.

Clark's not going to get my vote just because a few supporters of his stomp their feet because no one loves their candidate as much as they do.

First it was his non-existent healthcare plan, then it was his 'organizational talent' and now he's a 'winner' before a single vote has been cast.

Still the insistence on discussing Clark when he is not germane to the topic.

If Dean loses, does he become indefensible? If Clark wins, does it make him good? If Bush wins, is he defensible?


Koolean logic.

people are very complex. Their reasons are very complex. What you describe as a "shift" may actually be pieces of a larger gestalt with many, many other pieces in it yet unrevealed to you.

I am not interested in debating you about the reasons I am for Dean; it's plain you can't be persuaded anyway, and I have no interest in persuading you anyway.

If you go back to the top of this thread, you'll see that it isn't a Dean-bashing thread. It's actually you who's off topic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=868803#869896

Dean is a symptom, not the problem. I was able to make that clear until the kneejerkism came along.

'Larger gestalt'...

I'm still waiting for many of the Dem's in congress to get over their fear of this admin, and just stand up like Clark did to Limbaugh, "Your full of shit"!

That shut Limbaugh down immediately! It works with Coulter, it works with Tweety, it works with O'Reilly and Scarborough. As soon as they are called onto the carpet as liars, OPENLY, they run like little scared elves to safety of the darkness under the bridge!

What we need are people that call these people out!

I do it with Bereuter when he is here in NE, I hold the honor, of being the ONLY person ever escorted out of a town meeting with him, becaquse my question was, "Why is it so difficult to make sure that this 80 year old farmer and his wife get the meds they need to keep them alive: because you people in congress steal the money from SS and medicare for pork projects; you are thieves"!

BTW: as I was escorted out, (and I wasn't even acting out of line by being 'overzealous'), I was applauded and cheered by the people at that meeting, and Bereuter lost all credibility for the rest of the meeting. I was in the hall listening to him being eaten alive by otheres. All it takes is ONE voice to bring out the truth!

:bounce:

The party is hurt by the images of Decadent Hollywood Liberals, radical "treehuggers", man-hating feminists, etc. The right-wing propaganda machine has been pounding that into the collective consciousness for 25 years now. They're easy soundbites to digest.

We have not responded in a coordinated fashion, and don't really have the means to respond. This is partly due to our lack of media access, partly due to a general lack of leadership, and partly because our party has such a big tent that not everybody agrees and we don't and won't all do the same goose-stepping march that the Republicans do, spitting out their talking points at every chance they get.

I could agree with you wholeheartedly IF your estimastions about Dean were correct. They are not. They are so mindbogglingly not that it makes my head spin.

Unless there's a huge setback in Iraq or with the economy, Bush is going to win.

We had an umexciting candidate who was constantly and unceasingly lied about by the mainstream press who STILL won in 2000, including in FL were it noot for the most massive program of vote suppression and vote fraud the world has ever seen, and even at THAT he won FL.

ANY of our top tier candidates can win, assuming ONLY that we can prevent the vote suppression and computerized (and other) vote fraud we saw in FL. If Americans were smart enough to prefer Gore over Bush with all that Gore had stacked against him (incl Nader), they'll be smart enough to turn him out when next they get the chance.

We live in pretty stressful times, and I think that whatever fear people are feeling is fully understandable. I'm scared shitless of four more years of Bush myself.

Who wouldn't be? A president's first term is often the more moderate one, since he has his eye on re-election. If Bush is re-elected, he has no reason to hold any of his most extreme agenda items in check, since he won't be responsible to the voters any more. So god knows what we might be looking at in a second Bush term. Whatever it is, it won't be pretty.

We are all acutely aware of this, and I don't see any way that this fear could not rise to the surface. We must do our best to try and be rational, work together, talk to each other, and LISTEN to each other, so that we ultimately have a candidate that we all collectively want to get behind. The fear is natural, but we have to try and keep perspective and not let it get the best of us.

As someone who has allowed fear and anxiety to harm my life, I firmly believe that the healthy action is to take the negative emotion of fear and do something positive with it. That applies to politics and every other part of life. Positive actions stemming from fear of 4 more years of Bush: VOTE, write letters to the editor, stay informed, talk about Bush policies and good alternatives to other people, give $ to a campaign, volunteer to go door to door with candidate info, help get out the vote, drive people to the polls, be supportive when you can of all progressive publications, websites, etc.. I've worked hard for candidates who lost but I sure felt better than when I supported a candidate and didn't work for him or her and they lost. Positive action greatly removes the negative corrosion of fear.

Unfortunately Dean has said he is not. And that scares me because it indicates he fails to see (or really care about) the consequences of the Dems losing.

I'll take intelligence over reckless bravado anyday, which is why I back Kerry.

It marks him as radically different from the tight-assed, risk-free losers who depressed the hell out of us in November 2002.

Dean said he's not afraid to lose? Show me!

but I think it will get better after a nominee is chosen, which God willing will be soon. After that, all doubts will be pointless, because it's a done deal.

Some of the fear is also plain 'ol human vanity of wanting to win, coupled with the seething frustration of the downtrodden. Too much of personal involvement with campaigns is some kind of desperate personal referendum wherein the supporter is wildly fighting some kind of personal last-ditch stand against all the slights and indignities of his/her life. At least, in the end, it's of more import than sports team affiliations, but it's to the same degree of stubborn, aggressive self-reflection and it just messes up the whole thing for everyone.

I'm sure it's exhilarating to be an early-convert Deanie right now; it's like a damn movie: out of nowhere to the soaring heights of seeming invincibility. I'm sure many of the stalwarts feel that the philistines who don't accept the true goodness of their guy are out to destroy their final vindication after a life of personal horrors and thwarted hopes that none of the rest of us have labored under. Still, though, they need to still behave, especially since they've demanded from the beginning that everyone else does, while generally granting themselves the loose manners of the beatific underdog. I'm sure those of us who don't buy it are intruding on their glee and true hopes, and although I slather the sarcasm on thick, I truly empathize with them and can see it from their perspective.

Enough's enough, though, and this is one of those peak moments of decisiveness. If we acquiesce to the bandwagon, we're gonna be stuck with this guy, and I have many reasons why I think that's a supremely bad idea.

I don't like him. I don't like Autocratic Popinjays; we've already got one in the White House. A lot of other people don't like being ordered about and lectured by the Doctor as if we're a bunch of ignorant peons. There's more: he's far too prone to shooting himself in the foot, as he's done repeatedly, and the cumulative effect will only continue to build as his strutting furore leaves the constant possibility of him doing something REALLY ruinous. Then we're stuck with him, and that'll be that. He's not liberal enough for my tastes. He's distorted and outrightly lied about his opponents REPEATEDLY AND HABITUALLY, so his integrity is more than just suspect. He does NOT have the best chance of winning the general election. He has a solid chance of winning and then alienating everyone so much that we're guaranteed a return of the forces of evil in '08. Besides all this, there's another candidate I truly adore, and there are two more who have a fighting chance who I also like better than him. I'm in a bad mood; I probably should have bitten that mailman on the leg this morning, but what's done is done...

The Dean issue is THE issue right now, and that's what's heated things up. Perhaps the flutter of the endorsement will subside and we'll actually have the primary we were led to believe we'd get. Perhaps not, but these are going to be testy times, and that's just fine.

I absolutely love the Daily Democrat threads; without being a bunch of goody two-shoes about it, there's finally a place for positive energy, and the concept is largely being respected.

Hugs and kisses, dammit!

Never one to shrink from the point he wishes to make :D

It's exactly that which caused many Dems in congress to be cowed into boting for the IWR and HomelandinSecurity bill.

Shameful.

Julie

if people are willing to be this vicious to their supposed friends and allies, well - look out DUBYA when we have a single candidate. All that defensiveness is concentrated on one person, all that rage goes to the Princeling.

Good post.

You face your fears - and they become smaller and more easily surmountable. Meanwhile YOU get stronger.

I realized just how right NSMA is. I can sense fear in about 1/3 of the posts. Why? What is there to be afraid of?

Sure, bush may take the next election, but I don't believe he will.

Our fears are self aggrandized. We become afraid because we want to be afraid. Rather than accept the fear, fight against it; ACT.

i don't ask people to trust me in everything I say, but I am in this instance. I have not been beaten by a neo-con yet, and I live in Nebraska, (they breed like rabbits here). In EVERY case I have taken them on, civility is a good thing to remember here, I have won. They have left generally dejected, and occasionally mad; but I will tell you this, The Audobon Society has wanted posters out for the NE neo-cons because they are wiping out the crow population from all they've had to eat.

Stand your ground, believe you are right, and keep the pressure on. I have an ongoing bet for $100 for anyone that can tell me ONE thing Reagan did that improved the country, I spent the $100 long ago, because I knew I would not have to pass it on to a neo-con.

They will rant and rave, and blame Clinton fror everything, but it is all bluster. I asked Scarborough why he can't explain a dead aide in his office, (no answer yet, and I don't expect one). But point is, he knows that someone remembers he is not being held to account...someday he will be.

Fight, you will not lose.

As for you NSMA :loveya:, you get me back on track!

O8)

is that the fear will drive them to the wrong candidate. In fact, it already has in too many cases.

but in the end...the Dem candidate must receive the full support of every Dem here, and throughout the nation. No split votes, no 3rd party, no "i won't vote because,______.

The object is to get the horror of this administration out of power.

While i might not be fearful; I hope and pray that the fear of 4 more years of this horror, will motivate people to come together and send this administration packing.

:hi:

Even if we get four more rest assured Hillary will sweep it in 2008 and carry it on for decades. Looking forward after 2008 it's not that big of a deal. We survived the last four and if there is another how bad can it be?

are from the paid disruptors.

I've been on DU long enough to recognize many things. I sincerely DOUBT very many (if any) posters are paid disruptors.

:kick: