Anyone else sick of the Clinton/Kerry bashers?

I mean for fuck's sake, I am really getting sick of this bullshit. If you want a site where everyone bash's Clinton and Kerry then please go over to freeperland.

Listen very carefully now!! You are NOT going to find the perfect candidate who does exactly what you want. That person does not exist.

Yes, Kerry conceded too early, but does that mean he should be attacked every time someone mentions his name? The guy has been fighting for us before then, and even harder since.

As for the Clinton haters, you guys can just leave. You guys blame him like he had control over everything. He is and was a great Democrat. No, he's not perfect, but who the fuck is? I mean, if you can't find enough to complain about with the current Prez, then please start your own Democrat bashing site someplace else.

It's getting really old here.

You can, however make DU more efficient by pressing the little icon of the guy sleeping.

it bashes Democrats on this site then should I just take it?

Without rebuttal = no.

Sometimes folks will come on and say that because they hold an unpopular position they are being held down or not allowed to speak freely. I don't get that pov, since none of us has the power from our keyboards to stop anybody from saying what they want.

I felt quite cowed right after the election as a Kerry supporter. But I stayed. And if I felt like posting something pro-Kerry, I did. Got some good responses and several angry responses. I don't understand why some supporters say they've been driven away from here. Hell, man, stand and fight.

If I see what I consider misinformation, I will post something in rebuttal. I have been called delusional, an operative, a sychophant, a person who's romanticizing my candidate, an apologist, and a few things I can't think of right now. I'm not thrilled with that, but I try to answer civilly nonetheless. (I don't always manage.)

Luckily, there is a Kerry group to keep me sane (:hi:) because they understand and feel the same.

:D

Let me add that one.

Operative
Sychophant
Apologist
Zombie

Hmmm.

OSAZ
SAZO
ZAOS
AZSO

There's a club name in there somewhere, I just know it.

Everyone thinks they are the only one with the facts. Can you tell me what fake facts "Kerry and Clinton bashers" are using that are not real facts?

The Skull and Bones folks are sort of out in left field.

Also, someone made the comment on DailyKos that if any other Senator were doing what Kerry's been doing lately, we'd be all agog. But since it IS Kerry, folks have been less than enthusiastic. There's a certain kneejerk reaction I wish wasn't there.

Another example: if you look at his voting record, the only thing DLCish about him really is his hawkishness. Otherwise, he's pretty much too liberal for the DLC. I think the moniker probably fit him better a while back, but that he's grown, or is growing away from them. He's too far to the left.

It appears to be the difference between those who gave him a good hard open-minded look, and those who figured they knew what he was about without looking.

To some, he's an IWR vote on legs. Me, I refuse to ride the vote rollercoaster. Good people could get flushed that way, like my Senator, Feingold, whose head some called for when he voted for Gonzalez (or was it Rice? Eh, same difference)

when people presume to know things they simply cannot know. They presume to know why Kerry did or said certain things. They think they know what his "true" motivations were, and all of that kind of stuff. Facts are one thing, but these wild and unsubstantiated theories are quite another!

The thing that bothers me second-most is the re-writing of Kerry's whole campaign. He didn't do this, or that. He wasn't tough enough, he didn't attack Bush, he was too negative, he wasn't negative enough, he didn't connect with the people. If someone wants to propose a critique,fine, then please find some quotes from a speech or something to back it up.

He didn't follow my advice, which was different from everybody else's advice that he was also somehow supposed to follow.

His campaign highlighted the problems within the Dem Party itself. We don't know what we want as a whole, and since Kerry is rather famously open to suggestion, he got treated as something of a pushmepullyou.

I think he should have gone more with his strengths, as in foreign policy and not "it's the economy stupid" as the Clintonistas wanted, he should have presented more of his resume, such as Iran/Contra, BCCI and his years as a prosecutor who never lost a case. And when Cahill/Shrum tried to restrain his natural feistiness, he should have told them where to get off.

But as for issues, I know he did the best he could. He couldn't have pleased everyone.

... voters make such judgements EVERY SINGLE DAY. And if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a fucking duck until it speaks up and explains itself. Period.

and some folks from here going "Here kitty, kitty, kitty."

Another image:

"It's a duck!"

(looking closer)"Actually, it's a goose."

"Why are you censoring me! I have a right to my opinion!"

"Sorry, still a goose."

Some folks just don't look closely enough.

... are better than others, or maybe you just think they are.

Theories and speculations are not fact.

The rules explicitly state that you are not allowed to promote conservatives at DU. So right there, you have an "infringement" on freedom of speech at DU, except - it's a private site, and the admins can make any speech rules they want. Freedom of speech is not absolute and unlimited everywhere, much as you might like it to be. There are rules.

I honestly wish ad hominem attacking of Dems was against DU rules too. Like the OP states - if you want to hate on Democrats so much, there are plenty of other sites (ones that don't have "Democratic" in their names) to choose from.

If we can't discuss our elected officials' shortcomings this will turn into a groupthink waste of bandwidth like Free Republic, where any dissenting opinion is instantly dismissed.

Demonstrable lies or wacked-out conspiracy theories or RW talking points are a whole other can of worms. I don't see how ad hominem name calling against Democrats like Kerry and Clinton gets us anywhere, especially when said Dems are provably doing good things now. Criticize things you see fit to criticize, of course, but I don't see the point of baseless accusations and slander.

Republicans conspire. There's evidence of it everywhere.

And they are secretive, which lets peoples' imaginations go wild.

Only when people bring that stuff out can it be properly assessed.

Christ, do you think the magic bullet theory would have survived if there was a DU in 1963?

Hell no.

Agreed. Distortion and limitation is built in this website and we suffer from it.

Trying to go deeper than Dem vs Repub theater of red/blue sports teams, a binary choice of two corrupt parties, freaks people out who don't want to believe American politics is more complicated than that.

'Facts vs. conspiracy theories' ?? Puh-lease!

The CIA got ahold of all the mainstream media 50 years ago and we're suppose to believe they let go. Right.

The front page of DU flaps in the wake of Repub talking points and propaganda.

but since this is a subjective thing and who you like IS your right to choose, then no, I don't have a problem with people not liking Kerry or Clinton. If they present cogent arguments to support that, that's even better. You don't have to like their arguments. I am as DISAPPOINTED as I have ever felt over the dems and these two people. That's my opinion and no one has a right to pillory me over it. You won't find more DIE HARD dems than me and my family. We support the party but we don't have to shut up when we see dumb ass things happening or people going off their rockers.

...the whacked out conspiracy theories, parotted rightwing talking points, and the outright nit picking that bugs me.

part of the same secret religion that sacrifices young children for fun?

Oi vey!

Mine is that the DLC set up Dean by taping him with the only sound source being the close microphone he was holding, so that he would look silly when he screamed and you couldn't hear how loud it was in there. Then the DLC distributed the tapes to the media.

The reason that this is my favorite is because it's spot-on. I'm the one that drove the van full of tape-duplicating equipment, and we could run off 200 copies while we were driving around giving the tape out to the corporate media. Of course, the theory could have been a lucky guess, but I feel the poster won a good game nonetheless. I'm no sore loser.

I have been called an agent provocateur, and a DNC operative, so I'm with you, I guess.

Maybe someday we'll get assigned to pull a Watergate on Dean's HQ and sabotage him from within, and in the ensuing fallout promote one of our DLC cohorts for the job?

I look forward to working with you, comrade.

I want to get the guts up some time to ask folks where they heard the Skull and Bones theory. I'm curious about what source they used for that theory. I've only seen one so far, a real hairy palms affair that also called that frat a homosexual Satanic cult in which Bush and Kerry were getting it on, so to speak. Personally, I think he could do bettah.

(shudder)

I've wanted to ask, but I didn't wanna open up any can of worms again. I was wondering if there were any more reputable sources for that claim.

after the election...post a positive thread about Kerry and people were on you like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat. He's one of my senators, and by continuing to support him I felt I was in a VERY small minority.

OH SHIT.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
*cant. breathe.*

And putting up an entry that simply says "Kerry" just to see what folks will do. Is his name the red flag I think it is?

I won't bash Hillary... well, much anyway. I've been know to call her a pander monkey, but if she's doing something good, like putting up election reform legislation, I will support her. I won't reject whatever effort is being put forth as a kneejerk reaction simply because it's Hillary at the helm.

There is a difference between criticism and a bash.

My mantra: support the action even if you don't support the person.

Also, I have promised myself that I would have the Dem Party's back. And that includes no needless bashing. Even Joementum gets the occasional cookie if he's being a good boy.

My mantra: support the action even if you don't support the person.

I DO support the person I criticized (Bill Clinton) but abhor his recent actions: cozying up to the Bushies, becoming their new bestest friend. This is not a stupid man, Bill knows full well his public display of friendship/support works to legitimize the Bush family and, by extension, the current administration. SHAME ON HIM.

I can criticize the guy I support, ie Kerry. He, like Gore, would make a much better president than he does a candidate. I understand he's much better in smaller groups, as I hear Gore is too. But both come off too stiff, Gore more so, but Kerry too if he's not comfortable. He got better as he went along. But still, I wish we could eliminate tv and radio and just go with newspapers for campaigning.

But on the flip side, I'd like to see folks support good action, like election reform or health care or fighting to save the filibuster, even if they'd never vote for the person in a million years. I wouldn't vote for Hillary, but I'll support her bill. You know?

The '04 primary season was a war zone on DU. If (when?) Hillary runs for the nomination in '08, '04 will probably look tame in comparison.

to ever hijack our government, while we still have good Democrats to destroy? :eyes:

For my part, I've just agreed to disagree. I'm not going to change their minds, they're not going to change my mind. I know Clinton/Kerry are not perfect. I know they don't register "High" in every category of the liberal meter. And, in some cases, I'm glad they don't.

Objectively, they are more "liberal" than lots of the so-called liberal heroes around DU. Well, Kerry is, anyway (lifetime 92 rating from the ADA progressive group).

But I hear you.

Nobody to my knowledge.

I still believe Kerry ran an poor campaign and allowed the Bush camp to define him.
The Big Dawg, lot's of love for him! I feel sincere regret for every bad thing I ever said about him.

I think the OP is referring to Hillary.

But see, what you just said I don't consider bashing. That's just criticism, valid criticism.

It's when things are said that are demonstratably untrue that my teeth itch.

I honestly have no tangible reason, but I just don't like her and doubt that she'd connect with enough voters to be a viable Presidential candidate. She seems sort of phony and plastic in her mannerisms. Yep, I know it has nothing to do with her credentials, but it's just a gut feeling.

It seems like Bill had charisma that covered up a certain politicking style. But Hillary doesn't have Bill's charisma, so all we see is her politicking. She doesn't seem to know how to make it seem natural. It was too obvious what she was doing when she gave her "reaching out to pro-lifers" speech. I'm not sure I see alot of conviction in her. But then again I started off in almost the same position with Kerry and ended up just loving the guy. So maybe if I gave her a chance, read up on her, and gave her as hard a look as I did Kerry, she's grow on me too. It may come to that. But I don't think I'll start that process unless she becomes our nominee.

I'd really rather it wasn't Hillary, frankly. At the moment, I'm close to ABC.

I think the Clintons are great, and I would enthusiastically support Hillary if she was the nominee in 2008 (I have no idea who I will support in the primaries yet).


Kerry, on the other hand, is a fine Senator, but nothing more. I don't think he is presidential material on any level (accomplishments, speaking ability, or ability to connect with ordinary Americans), which is why he was one of my last choices for the 2004 nomination.

though I will support her if she is the nominee.

I think you are shortchanging Kerry on his accomplishments (the other things are fairly subjective), but as he is my senator, I may be better informed about him.

Than all the other 2004 candidates combined.

The best thing in my book for a presidential candidate is executive experience, which is why I loved Dean's 11-year track record of accomplishment.

I really don't give a crap about some 15 year old investigation into the BFEE or some silly protests againsts against the Vietnam War. I care about real accomplishments that positively impact people's lives.

- he worked actively on S-CHIP, which is a healthcare program for kids, had a hell lot of actions concerning Small Businesses, and particularly very small businesses, is one of the originator of the COPS program, that put 100,000 cops on the streets to protect the neighborhoods, sponsored the Affordable Housing Preservation Act, this among many other things.

I would disagree that his action against VietNam War is not important, and he has fought a lot for veterans too.

Kerry's silly protests against the Vietnam, more succintly his testimony to the Fulbright Commission, helped to end the end the Vietnam War. That had a huge positive impact on people's lives, FYI.

Perhpas you are confusing Kerry's BCCI investigation and his Iran/Contra investigation with investigations into BFEE (Bush Family's Evil Empire).

In 1976, Kerry was a top prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts (BOSTON). During his tenure are prosecutor Kerry was responsible for putting the #2 Mafia boss behind bars. At the time everyone in the state thought he was nuts to take on the mob. His success proved his stuff, yet again. As prosecutor, Kerry fought for victims' rights and created the country's first programs for rape counseling.

Kerry was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1982. Not willing to sit on the sidelines Kerry organized the nation's Governors to combat the acid rain that was polluting lakes, rivers, and the nation's water supply. Kerry was responsible for the first Earth Day in MA, as Lt. Gov.

"John Kerry compiled an impressive record of accomplishment during his career in the United States Senate. During his two decades of service, he fought for fiscal discipline, expanded children's health care, fought to put 100,000 more cops on America's streets, and worked with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to investigate the fate of American POW/MIAs and help soldiers suffering from exposure to Agent Orange.

As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, John Kerry stood up for Americans who own and work for small businesses and fought for a level playing field in today's competitive global economy. In 19 years of service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - including a term as chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations - John Kerry distinguished himself as one of our nation's most respected experts on national security issues and a leader in fighting terrorism and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Putting principle ahead of partisanship, John Kerry worked with his Republican colleagues on important issues like balancing the budget and keeping government spending under control. And with a firm dedication to expanding and strengthening the middle class, he fought for an America that fulfills its great promise - that gives hard-working Americans the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families.
Building a Stronger Economy
Making America Safer
Expanding and Improving Health Care for All Americans
Making America More Respected in the World
Other Important Accomplishments

Building a Stronger Economy
Crossed Party Lines to Support a Balanced Budget and Cast the Decisive Vote to Create 23 Million New Jobs. Shortly after joining the Senate, John Kerry crossed party lines to bring fiscal discipline back to Washington.


Fought for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Deficit Reduction Act, Balanced Budget Act. John Kerry cosponsored and voted for the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget and deficit reduction bill to end runaway deficits. In 1993, John Kerry supported the Deficit Reduction Act, which put America back on track toward a balanced budget and fiscal discipline. John Kerry's vote reduced the deficit and resulted in the creation of 23 million new jobs. John Kerry also voted for the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which dramatically reduced spending and balanced the budget for the first time in a generation.
Helped Increase the Minimum Wage. John Kerry was instrumental in passing the most recent increase in the minimum wage - to $5.15 per hour in 1997.

Fought for the Child Tax Credit. John Kerry led a successful fight for an amendment he introduced to make sure that all working families receive a child tax credit.

Stood Up for Small Business. As chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, John Kerry promoted policies to increase access to capital, open international markets, foster innovative technology companies, reduce red tape and increase federal contracting opportunities. He also created and improved the MicroLoan program, expanded the successful nationwide Women's Business Centers (WBC) and loan programs that help the small businesses of reservists stay afloat while they are on active duty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making America Safer
Fought For 100,000 Additional Cops on the Street. As a former prosecutor, John Kerry understands the importance of strong law enforcement. That's why he led the fight to add police on our streets through his amendment to the 1993 Crime Control bill. John Kerry's amendment provided for $150 million to hire 100,000 new police officers - a measure widely regarded as having helped to lower the crime rate across the country.

Fought to Modernize and Strengthen America's Military. John Kerry has supported over $4 trillion in defense funding and has supported virtually every successful weapons system in use by today's military. In 2002, John Kerry voted for the largest increase in defense spending since the 1980's. And because John Kerry understands that our national security begins with the men and women who risk their lives to protect it, he has supported pay increases, benefit increases, and quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform throughout his career.

Fought Global Terrorism. John Kerry introduced critical legislation for cracking down on international laundering of terrorist funds. He was one of the key architects of anti-money-laundering provisions in the Patriot Act designed to deny financing for terrorists, and he has consistently used these provisions to press the Bush administration to crack down on terrorist financing activities by Syria and Saudi Arabia. He introduced a bill to ban arms exports to countries that provide support for acts of international terrorism, a proposal that was incorporated into the final 1990 State Department Authorization Bill.

Made the Homeland More Secure. John Kerry was an original co-sponsor of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which improved our nation's airline security after September 11th. He also helped pass legislation in response to September 11th that placed armed Coast Guard personnel on high-risk vehicles such as oil and gas tankers as they enter port.

Worked to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons. John Kerry has made preventing the spread of nuclear weapons a top priority. He fought for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fought against withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and has been a strong and persistent advocate of programs that help secure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and materials in the former Soviet Union so they do not fall into the hands of hostile states or terrorists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expanding and Improving Health Care
for All Americans
A Leader in Expanding Access and Lowering the Cost of Health Care for America's Children. John Kerry was there at the beginning of the fight to provide the largest investment in children's health care since the creation of Medicaid.

Wrote Pre-Cursor Bill to S-CHIP, Providing Coverage for up to 5 Million Children. John Kerry's 1996 bill, the Healthy Children, Family Assistance Health Insurance Program, was the precursor to the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that became law in 1997. S-CHIP provides funding to cover 5 million children.
Improved Coverage and Care for America's Veterans. John Kerry has been a tireless champion of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. He fought vigorously for full funding of Veterans Administration (VA) health care and opposed the Bush administration's exclusion of Priority 8 veterans and its elimination of VA outreach efforts. He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy.

Improved Post-Natal Care. John Kerry co-sponsored an amendment that successfully required health care plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for a mother and child following the birth of the child.

Fought HIV/AIDS. John Kerry was among the earliest supporters of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which today is the largest discretionary federal investment in treatment and support services for individuals and families living with HIV or AIDS. Today, 533,000 Americans with HIV/AIDS receive better treatment through this program.

Addressed America's Nursing Shortage. John Kerry wrote the Nurse Reinvestment Act to help relieve a nationwide, crisis-level shortage of registered nurses by encouraging more young people to choose a career in nursing. Today, enrollment rates at undergraduate nursing programs are up by 17 percent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making America More Respected
in the World
Helped Spread Democracy and Human Rights Throughout the World. John Kerry was a leading advocate for democratic elections in the Philippines, serving as an elections monitor as part of a Senate delegation that uncovered the fraud that led to the ouster of President Ferdinand Marcos. He was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. He worked with the United Nations and Cambodian government officials to facilitate the creation of the genocide tribunal in Cambodia that will prosecute key members of the Khmer Rouge. He sponsored the Code of Conduct of Arms Transfers Act, which prohibited U.S. military assistance and arms transfers to nations that do not adequately protect the human rights of their citizens. And he co-sponsored bipartisan legislation which imposed sanctions on Burma's military regime for detaining Aung San Suu Kyi and repressing her National League for Democracy party.

Fought Global HIV/AIDS. John Kerry authored major elements of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, legislation which at the time provided the most money ever for fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world. He sponsored the bipartisan U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002, comprehensive legislation that was unanimously approved by the Senate and became the foundation of the global AIDS legislation that was passed by congress and signed by President Bush.

Fought International Crime, Corruption and Drug Trafficking. John Kerry chaired the landmark hearings that uncovered the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal - the largest banking corruption scandal in modern times. He led hearings which provided evidence that Haitian military officials were involved in drug trafficking to the United States. He also led hearings on corruption and drug trafficking by Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and introduced legislation requiring the Reagan administration to cut off foreign aid to Panama because of drug-related corruption within its government.

Uncovered Government Corruption. John Kerry went on a fact-finding mission to Nicaragua and presented his findings to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Based in part on John Kerry's groundbreaking findings, the committee reached a consensus decision to investigate the Contra guerillas and their connection to drug trafficking in the United States. The resulting investigation uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal, a scheme that diverted profits from illegal arms sales to Iran to support the Contra guerilla fighters in Nicaragua.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Important Accomplishments
Took on the Task of Investigating POW/MIA Issues. John Kerry and John McCain "doggedly investigated" an important and volatile issue which some described as an "unglamorous task that nobody else wanted." Regarding the investigation, John McCain said, "John Kerry handled the chairmanship of that committee with tremendous skill." In 1994, John Kerry sponsored an amendment with McCain that urged the American government to lift its 25-year trade embargo with Vietnam. He then worked closely with McCain and President Clinton to facilitate full normalization of trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam.

Fought to Help Victims of Agent Orange. Beginning more than 15 years ago, John Kerry introduced legislation to assist veterans in receiving medical compensation after being exposed to the toxic chemical Agent Orange. John Kerry even testified before Congress to force the government to care for Vietnam veterans. John Kerry's bill, the Comprehensive Agent Orange Scientific Evidence Review Act, sought to require that the Veterans Administration(VA) look into the "health effects of exposure" to Agent Orange. John Kerry also voted to pass the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and the Veterans' Agent Orange Exposure and Vietnam Service Benefits Act of 1989.

Fought to Protect America's Environment. John Kerry has been described by the League of Conservation Voters as an "environmental champion." He introduced legislation to improve standards for clean air and establish a fund to finance emissions reductions. He secured millions of dollars in funding to clean America's waterways, harbors, and drinking water, worked to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, and introduced legislation in 1996 to ensure "protection in the quality of our water." He sponsored legislation that extended and strengthened laws protecting marine mammals from commercial fishing. He helped protect America's National Parks and National Forests from pollution, excessive logging, and overdevelopment while ensuring that endangered species are preserved for all Americans to experience. He has opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling for over a decade, ensuring that future generations can experience this national treasure. He strongly advocated for U.S. participation in the Kyoto accords and other international environmental initiatives, and personally participated in many major world environmental summits, including conferences at Rio di Janiero, Kyoto and the Hague.

Fought for America's Veterans. John Kerry has been a tireless champion of mandatory funding for veterans' health care. He fought vigorously for full funding of VA health care and opposed the Bush administration's exclusion of Priority 8 veterans and its elimination of VA outreach efforts. He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, John Kerry investigated the fate of missing American soldiers in Vietnam and brought about the resolution of this difficult issue for their families and for the governments of both countries. In 1994, he sponsored an amendment with Senator McCain that urged the American government to lift its 25-year trade embargo with Vietnam. He then worked closely with Senator McCain and President Clinton to facilitate full normalization of trade and diplomatic relations with Vietnam.

Stood Up for America's Children. John Kerry wrote the bill that became the foundation for the 1997 State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), which provided states with federal funding to help extend health insurance coverage to children whose families do not qualify for Medicaid. He introduced legislation to expand state and local early childhood development efforts, including education, child care and health care for children between birth and six years old. At the end of 2000, a version of this bipartisan legislation was signed into law. To address the needs of America's at-risk youth, John Kerry led the effort to establish the YouthBuild program, which provides young people with basic education toward a diploma and the skills training they need to get a good-paying job. YouthBuild also teaches leadership and civic engagement while providing students with adult mentors who help them overcome personal problems and participate in a supportive community with positive values.

Fought for Affordable Housing. As a member of the Senate Housing Subcommittee, John Kerry has a long record of fighting for affordable housing. He shaped the first significant rewrite of the public housing program in over 20 years and worked to craft and pass a bill that helped save the government billions of dollars in rental assistance payments, preserved thousands of affordable rental apartments, and helped finance the rehabilitation of those apartments. With Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry sponsored the Affordable Housing Preservation Act to foster local partnerships between non-profits, state and local governments, and private landlords in order to keep existing housing projects available and affordable for low-income tenants. He worked to create and implement the "mark-up to market" program and he co-authored the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act of 2000."

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/about/record.html

That gigolo John Kerry never worked a day in his pampered life!!
:sarcasm:

KG, YOU ROCK. Thanks for doing your homework and always keeping your cool.

The Senate record is. The Kerry Bio/History is my rewrite of his bio. Regardless it's fact and atleast someone around here is willing to go the extra length to present the dfacts rather than make blanket uninformed statements!

information. That's what most people want when they demand links and "proof." For you to provide a source. You did, and thanks.

from him. I, for one, appreciate that enormously. He hasn't faded into the background and it doesn't look like he has plans to do so. That means something to ME.

Although I love Bill, I think Hillary is a fine senator, and not presidential material (and she's my senator).

I'm not sure who will be the nominee in 08 - whoever it is, I will support because I want the repukes OUT, but as of today, my first choice would be Kerry, who I think got robbed (literally).

And it's fine to have opinions, but there is so much just plain BASHING on here. I guess the bashing is an opinion, too, but there are so many disgusting, lying repukes to bash....

he is trying to pass initiatives like child healthcare and needs all the help he can get. It was shameful the way the Republican machine treated him so he doesn't need it from us.

Clinton is my hero: peace, prosperity, and he porked a woman half his age. That's the american dream :P

I mean, flashing her thong at their first meeting? Classless! BiggDawg coulda done better.

:P

So I'll cut him some slack. :P

Yeah, so that's proof that the best man a plump woman can get is the president of the united states!

I'm flashing more than my thong.

in Rome today? When he realized the camera was on him, he tried to shift the crutches to the side and hide them. He was on crutches, yet he was standing in those long lines to view the Pope.

Does anyone know what sort of accident Kerry had? I heard no mention of it in the news (not surprisingly).

To repair cartledge damaged from years of playing sports.

n/t

I was wondering what happened.
:hi:

Does that opinion count as "bashing?" It's an honest question.

I'm glad they're both in the senate working for us.

if you can explain why...

if it's just presented as a statement, then it's a bash. IMHO.

Hillary is too divisive.

Kerry can't get rid of his wishy-washy, elitist, NE liberal image. The swiftboat liars will be back, and all his history. He can't escape that, and therefore would be a handicapped choice.

Many DUers have been here much longer than you and it's insulting for you to suggest that they go somewhere else if they don't agree with you about Clinton or Kerry.

How about this? If YOU don't like it here...then fucking leave.

if they don't agree with you about Clinton or Kerry.

How about this? If YOU don't like it here. the fucking leave.

Your turn again.

Imagine where we'd be if Clinton hadn't rescued the nation. Think things are bad now? Pssh.

And just what attracted all the DLC lovers to this little ole Leftist site to come tell us how "sick" you are of this "bullshit".

Time for YOU to listen very, very carefully. The very legitimate gripes about Clinton, who is now surgically attached to that reptile Poppy Bush, and an addle-brained Kerry who votes for unimportant things like, you know, the war before he speaks against it in a half-assed manner thinking that's really going to fool people, are not, I repeat, NOT going away. Fighting for us, pfffffft. Cynthia McKinney has been fighting for us. Conyers has been fighting for us. Feingold has been fighting for us. Even poor Barbara Boxer despite some rather bizarre votes when a certain ally comes into question has been fighting for us. Clinton? Give me a break! And Kerry? Well, if you consider windsurfing fighting for us, more power to your illusions. May they keep you warm and comforted but I have a different idea of what constitutes fighting for the people and wind-surfing is nowhere on my list.

The DLC and the donkey's ass they rode on are going down, down, down and no amount of these, ahem, fresh young posts are going to change that.

The DLC lovers already tried this during and after the Primaries- it kind of... back-fired to put it gracefully. This time, expect no such charity.

Maybe you should consider starting a Clinton/Kerry loving site elsewhere instead of trying to transform this one :shrug:. Just an idea I'd say...

Yep, all Kerry's done in the past 40 years was windsurf and vote for IWR. Damn, are you perceptive! You are on top of things!

Clinton is the reason the 90s were halfway bearable, by the way. Maybe you forgot about that.

Your ad hominem right wing talking points are so worn out it's sad. You know, it's too bad your guy didn't win in the primary. Really. I feel for you. :nopity:

He was my guy too and I feel for all of us.

After CMB dropped out I really did not care who won the primary. I supported and voted for Kerry. There was a lot to admire about him. However he let us down when he refused to fight for the vote count. If people are not as loyal to Kerry and Clinton as I may like it's not going to kill me. As my Gran used to say, "It'll pass on a galloping horse".

Ches...

and never getting it EVEN with an idiot like Bush in the White House! Even after holding our balls in a vise grip with your silly mantra of ABB! A ham sandwich can beat Bush! ABB.

Listen closely. Never again. Never again will that BS work.

And you know what lol no pity, no sympathy :nopity: Just amused disgust at the denial and the hand-wringing of the New Dems who can't quite seem to grasp that the American people aren't buying their Republican-lite bull-shit anymore.

and which is worse, you are ill informed, but this is not surprising.

Ill-informed is to have thought that a ham sandwich could go up against Bush and that by slapping a little mayo on Kerry, everyone would think he was a gourmet meal fit for the court of Camelot.

Who do You want Kucinich thats a joke.

At least DK is well informed and is able to articulate his differences without using ad hominem.

Interestingly, he/she quotes Conyers, who voted for the IWR, the exact same vote he reproaches to Kerry.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml

No, consistency usually isn't the bashers strong suit, now is it?

at it because the alternative won't be pleasant ;)

How about a new one? Maybe a kinky sex cult? You could be the first. Eh? Eh?

G'head. You know you wanna.

Yeah, we're Kerry lovers. But not in the way you mean... heh, heh, heh, Heh, HEH (hurk!) Oops, sorry.

I love it when we agree! :hug:

Probably that the site is called "Democratic Underground", and used to be considerably more moderate than, say, Indymedia, and is for Democrats more than, say, members of communist front groups like ANSWER.

Indymedia!

I think an old poster called Carlos would beg to differ :)

and the education, too. And here I thought I knew a little bit about the dems, having read just about every political book and bio I could get my hands on. Now that I've read your post, I'm feeling REAL educated.

/sarcasm off


Actually, that post is a prime example of what the OP is talking about, I think. Needless ATTACKS based on personal opinions. Opinions are fine, attacks aren't very nice, nor are they helpful in any way, shape or form.

to get you "real educated" ;)

/sarcasm off

I'm as educated as I want to be - by that teacher, anyway.

1. While there are leftists here, I've been told it is open to any progressives. We also seem to have a decent amount of moderates and conservatives as well as the occasional recovering Republican, bless them. You speak for a portion of the population, but I suspect not all. And I'd like to see how many rank and file Dems feel the same. I suspect not a majority. But I'd have to see some sort of poll to be sure.

2. Those who think Kerry rather spiffy are not all DLCers. In fact, most of the ones in the Kerry group are not DLCers. Kerry is not a DLCer himself, that one vote not withstanding. He is something of a fiscal hawk and is more foreign policy hawk at times than some people here would prefer. That could be considered DLCish. But taken as a whole, he's too liberal for the DLC. I think he shall be outgrowing them soon.

3. Legitimate gripes are appreciated, at least by me, as long as they don't wander off into "conventional liberal wisdom" which like common conventional wisdom is often off the mark and simplified in its thinking. I appreciate it if legitimate gripes are tethered to reality, and even more so when these connections are spelled out in a calm manner.

4. Is Kerry a war vote on legs? After a lifetime of investigating and working for veterans and small business et al, THAT is the one vote that counts above ALL others?

In addition, www.kerryoniraqwar.com is a good resource for understanding where the man was coming from re: that vote is you would care to expand your knowledge. Also, I have his entire Senate speech from Oct 2002 on my site if you want to look, as well as an October speech he gave during the campaign on the very spot in Cinncinnati where Bush gave his "lying like a motherfucker about the war" speech. For reference, the "lying like a motherfucker" speech is also there. The fact that Kerry chose that place and that time of the month seems to indicate that he was quite pissed at being lied to by our Chimp in chief. I join him in that pissedness.

5. One of the things I read in the Boston Globe after the campaign was that one of Kerry's aides said Kerry couldn't bring himself to go full out against the war because of the soldiers in the field. It was a mental block he was having trouble getting past. He didn't want things he might say to affect them adversely. I suspect talking to McCain the POW after his comments in 1971 might have had something to do with that reaction, but I don't know for sure.

6. Yes, all those people have been fighting for us. I fear for them if they should vote in a way that folks don't like. I'd hate to see them be turned on as folks ride the vote rollercoaster: "We love him" "He betrayed us" "We love him again"

7. ANWR, the Condi vote (plus getting her on record about Pakistan), the Gonzalez vote, the call for Rummy's resignation, the fight against the filibuster, the fight for children's health care, co-sponsoring election reform, K/E lawyer Don McTigue still involved in an election lawsuit in Ohio on behalf of K/E (a suit that bugs Blackwell enough that he's trying to get rid of them by making them give a deposition), plus various speeches about Bush's phantom budget, the media, veterans and others.

Nah, he ain't fighting.

8. So he windsurfs. He also skis, skates, runs, paints, plays guitar, rides a motorcycle and does other shit. I also play guitar. But I don't run. I sorta waddle, actually.

9. You can put away your broad brush with the words "DLC lover" on it. Name calling would seem to be rather counterproductive anyway, and the label doesn't fit all. Or would you like to inform me of my own motivations and the motives of any others who say that they are Kerry supporters. Would you like the facts first or would they get in the way? So.. am I a zombie? An operative? A sychophant? How about dellusional? Maybe overly romantic (that was one of the nicer ones)

I've also been called a Communist, but whatcha gonna do when you live in Freeperville.

10. Not trying to transform anything. Just carving out me own niche amongst the Deaniacs, Clarkies et al. Not in favor of seeing them bashed either. And certainly not trying to "transform" this place, unless it's to try and make it a more civil place for all Dems and progressives. I try to make peace where I can, therefore. Big Tent, doncha know.

I suspect the Kerry Dems aren't going anywhere either. I've just heard within the last couple of days that many Deaniacs fled. I'd have stayed and fought myself, but that was up to them. But I think it's a shame they felt they weren't at home here. And I know several of the Kerry Dems can't stand to leave our little DU group. That is also a shame. Nobody's supporters should have to feel cowed about being here. And we are diminished without their input and enthusiasm.

In case anyone is wondering, I am one of the Kerry Dems she is talking about. And she's right!

How do ya like THAT?
:-)

trying to lay down all this tacky law and order based on temper tantrums because most DUers have become informed enough, over the process of years, to see through the DLC candidates.

It's too amusing to watch these sudden temper tantrums. Makes you really wonder.

this describes you so well.

You give some spice to a very boring thread. It is becoming funny. Clearly ill informed, but funny!

and it was yours. I've seen people post fact after fact, and they get another little "tantrum" in response.

I'm not so sure you speak for most DU'ers, and I think it's kind of presumptuous to say you do.

Makes you really wonder, indeed.

No one likes to see Clinton palling around with Poppy, and maybe Kerry did trip over one sentence in response to relentless and repeated badgering about the war - and a question he had already answered 1,000,000 times.

He also took one afternoon to go windsurfing after a grueling year of constant campaigning. He had every right to spend a few hours relaxing. Think about how run down anyone would have been keeping the hours a Presidential candidate does!

Realistically, that is not the whole entire make-up of the man and his life's work. Just focusing on a windsurfing excursion and a botched sentence and getting enraged about it isn't entirely fair - it really doesn't give an accurate portrayal of all Kerry has accomplished in his 61 years.

Why are you being so hostile? It doesn't seem that a man going windsurfing should be so upsetting - seven months after it happened.
Maybe other stuff is bothering you on top of just that?

to clear his head for the debate. And we all saw the result of that.

Perhaps he should do such things more often.

Personally, I can't figure it out. I live in Wisconsin, the land of a thousand lakes. And we have windsurfers and jek skiers who'd be quite surprised to hear that they're considered elitists.

No one in their right mind would seriously still be livid about a man going windsurfing seven months after the fact.

It may seem harsh because I'm not going to spend the time writing an encyclopedic post about the problems with Kerry and Clinton. They've been covered for the last 5 years. Talk to me about the difference between Kerry and Bush on the crusade against Venezuela and then you'll really see harsh because I have no forgiveness in my heart for the complicit silence, the enabling acquiescence and the lip-service hypocrisy.

This site begged people like Kerry NOT to vote for IWR. Followed them like hawks over the years getting more and more disgusted as the charades were uncovered.

Harsh? Harsh is what was done to the American people. Harsh is taking the money out of mouths of our children and giving it to Bush. Harsh is that bi-partisan slaughter taking place in Iraq. Harsh is supporting all the excusrions into Latin America. That's harsh.

I've examined Kerry's record, and it's the whole of it that leaves me unimpressed.

I guess you just have some really strong opinions about it and are pretty pissed off about some of the things that you see as poor leadership. Thanks for the clarification - so it's really not about the windsurfing. It's the IWR/Central America situations and the like.

I didn't gather that from your first post because you didn't mention anything like that.

And just what attracted all the DLC lovers to this little ole Leftist site to come tell us how "sick" you are of this "bullshit".

Tinoire, why was DU formed? Because Al Gore was robbed. What was Al Gore's political affiliation? DLC.

Where do you get the impression that DU is a leftist site? As I recall from about month three, there was very little left vs. moderate blowups here until 2002. Before that, it was all Bush bashing.

So you have some evidence that something "attracted" DLC people here during the primaries?

Maybe you should consider starting a Clinton/Kerry HATING site elsewhere instead of trying to transform this one :shrug:. Just an idea I'd say...

...WAIT! There already IS one!

..that you had nothing to say.

Why would I break that habit now? Your only interest is in defending the DLC and I hate merry-go-rounds!

but usually just finger wagging lectures with a dash of six degrees of Kevin Bacon conspiracy theories.

There's something about stone walls more interested in defending the status quo & attacking honest critics that prompted me to ignore your posts for a very long time.

Conceding too early is no reason to crucify the man at every turn!

I'm told by folks who were here that alot of this stuff started then, and hasn't stopped. At some point, I hope that the primary season of 2003 will be put to bed. It's counterproductive, and seeing things through its filter is distorting.

Because Kerry came out of nowhere and usurped Dean as the front-runner, people got angry and started eating him alive--and now they are doing it again with the excuse I mentioned above.

him for President and as President. I wasn't happy with a lot of centrist stuff he did and I don't consider Bill or Hillary really liberals. And I reserve the right to criticise him when he cushes up to the Bushes!

...i am not sick of it and believe that discussion regarding what we like/don't like about former candidates is healthy and will be beneficial once we start selecting a new candidate.

and there are a few policies of each that i didn't particularly care for. i won't go into them here, for fear of being called a "basher" but damn. take a look at it. big picture, sure... bill or john are vastly better than the republican alternatives but they certainly aren't squeaky clean liberals as far as i am concerned.

Kucinich for years from the attacks by other squeaky clean liberals who never understood how I could send money to a conservative Democrat. (This was in the 90s)

I always believed DK was a liberal in his heart and that he could be trusted to become a great voice in congress, even though I was very much against his votes with the GOP's legislation on abortion and flag-burning. It broke my heart, but I didn't give up on him, because I bothered to understand WHY he voted that way and the constituency he served.

There are NO squeaky clean liberals in any office. None. Even Wellstone had his conservative moments.

I just wish people in general would grow up about ALL politics, and being honest about ALL records, not just cherry-picked votes that honk you off, would be a great step in that direction.

http://www.freewebs.com/govwebsites

good job.

at a town hall meeting. Twice. Then again from a 'constituent'.

Ya know, Clinton will be the reason for Armageddon. Puke.

Just like the Bush worshippers.

but I do dislike the bashing of them, as well as the bashing of any other dem who is trying to do some good for the party, and/or for the people.

I'm a dem who thinks there is no perfect candidate, and you can find fault with any one of them. I see decent people bashed - I don't mean disagreed with, I mean BASHED - as in ATTACKED, on here on a daily basis. I don't like it. It serves no useful purpose.

To compare me with a bush worshipper is a little ridiculous, though. More than a little.

may make us look more like "worshipers" than would be the case if we weren't sensitized to respond by unfair attacks. I don't agree with everything Kerry did or every stand he's taken, although I may be more in line with his positions than those of any other candidate in my life. (McGovern and Hart were 2 others I really liked. I see much consistency in my own choices.) Also having read about his life and viewed his rallies on TV (no Kerry in my blue state), I strongly believe that he is a very decent, honorable person who has fought hard all his life to keep the US accountable to its constitutional values. (That is necessary, but not sufficient to make him a good President, but it does form part of the reason why I feel compelled to answer some of the attacks.)

I also liked Dean, because of some of his positions and partially from having talked to an elderly man who gave tours through the statehouse in Montpelier that we took our kids on when we vacationed in VT. This was well before he was running for President. The man told us both how smart he was and what a nice person he was - a conversation brought about when my then 10 year old, pointing to a Dean family picture, asked what his daughter's name was.

At the risk of inferring that I am typical, I think if the inane Kerry (other candidate) bashing went away, the need to defend Kerry (other candidate) would go away. The Kerry worship would then be observed only in the John Kerry group, where it shouldn't bother anyone. The discussions elsewhere would probably improve immeasurably.

All the wasted energy spent going negative on our own leaders is a real shame. We should be redirecting our energy and anger to wards the Republicans and Pres. Bush. If asked to sign petitions, make calls and write the media when we personally disagree with what is going on we should do these things. Instead, some people would rather make insulting comments and present excuses for not going along with a request for assistance simply because the wrong democrat asked for help. John Kerry seems to be subjected to this kind of treatment more then others. You win some, you lose some, but if you never make an effort you never get anywhere.

votes. But you must want peace in Israel..come on..for once peace in Israel & Palestine.

I'm also sick of Al Shapton bashing.

I don't think we should be attacking our leaders. Not the ones who have legitimate followings like all of the above.

they're being told they can't criticize or have an opinion.

I guess it's the name-calling that gets me down. And that I'm not sure people ever really take the time to investigate all the facts.

I guess it's a human thing, but it reminds me of a sign I saw once. "A conclusion is where someone stopped thinking." I do wish there was more open-mindedness.

I'm willing to give Joe a chance. I'm almost willing to give Clinton a chance (I'd have to be forced by a nomination, but still). Biden, not so much.

Maybe it's just the general sourpussiness that's getting me down.

No, it wouldn't fix everything, but it would be a damned site better than what we've got.

is okay. Not exactly like you in every way but better than the monsters we have in the WH?

I hope!

I hoped it was clear. But I won't be surprised if people show up and say, ah ha, it's a neocon mole.

"a neocon mole"
is that the same as a "suspicious mole" or a "malignant mole"?

:-)

Tee-hee

The neocons are a malignancy.

if we were this would be another freeperville.

I like Kerry and can't stand the Clintons. Big deal. :shrug:

Those of us who can't stand Clinton are not telling YOU to leave because you like Clinton are they?

Probably not.

So, it would be considerate if you extended the same courtesy to us that we extend to you.

as long as I don't get personally insulted. But then again, that's what the alert button is for.

No need to smear the people, especially with right wing garbage. That's what is sickening. And a complete waste of time. You can get 50 snarky comments in a matter of minutes, but try to get somebody to kick up an informative thread or activist thread. That's why I have to wonder if some of these disruptors aren't anything more than paid trolls.

but what if you find it an issue that Clinton has aligned himself with *? How is it not okay to expose that? But it's okay for people to go on and on about how Clinton saved civilization in the 90s? Frankly, the 90s weren't great for me and my family so why do I have to sit quiet with how what was once ambivalence toward the man is now disgust?

Just because others may want to counter what they find to be b.s. and propaganda-remember Hillary may be running for president soon-with their opinion and point of view does not make them paid trolls. I know that I'm not, though I could use the money since neither president helped my families fortunes one iota-quite the opposite in fact.

or destroy the party. Your choice.

The primaries is a different story. But we're not in the primaries and won't be for a while.

for a democratic board, i havent seen so much anomosity and blame directed at democrats, even sittin here in the panhandle of texas

i didnt know coming onto the dem board i would see just how rotten and useless democrats are

are your rank and file, who love, love, love to play cul-de-sac and watch commercial television, and trust corporations and work for the government. This is the group of people who, when you ask yourself, "so who the fuck supports genetically modified food, anyway?" or "if almost 50 percent of this country voted Democrat, who the hell is keeping the credit card, mortgage & fa(s)t food companies, Good Charlotte and J.Crew in the long dough?" ARE THE ANSWER.

On the other hand, a lot of the apparent "leftists" are so mired in "identity politics" that we could all be shackled to sewing machines or chicken-gutting assembly lines, and live in refrigerator boxes, so long as they get one up on the rapture nutjobs by having to make gay marriage legal, instead of fighting for civil contracts for all -- and getting the government out of marriage, NOT REALIZING that neither Starbucks, nor IKEA, nor Volvo accept little pieces of cardboard, smeared with chicken guts, sporting pencil-drawn happy faces as "legal tender."

When it comes down to big brother v. big brother, which would be the fascist right v. federal-level state socialism, only one group is going to solve this problem:

Radical thinkers.

As in less government, de-centralization, libertarian socialism, local government, community sphere of existence and for god's sake not worshipping the cult of personality of either the DLC honeys or the crusaders of the faux left.

and it's all your fault.

Libertarian socialism? Ow... ow... ow...

Radical thinkers. What does that entail? Can you give me a name that personifies such a person for reference's sake?

cul-de-sac stereotyping is becoming one of the largest issues facing the Democratic Party ... why is it that so many of you people on the far left can't understand that many cul-de-sackers (it's a word ... look it up ...) are not mired in "middle-American think" ??

each day, i leave the solitude and serenity of my little cul-de-sac to impose my little piece of hell on right-wing Americana ... and for this i am to be shamed because i prefer circles to straight lines? because i prefer a dog-safe street to the race tracks of the main roads?

this anti-cul-de-sac tyranny and bigotry must be stopped before none of us is free !!!

Let me put a little "nuance" on my sick-of-it-ness.

1) I'm sick of people disingenuously whining "What, we're not allowed to criticize??!?? What are we, Repukes??" when their "criticism" has actually been a vicious emotional (not rational) attack on someone with a lot of supporters here and smacks of just knee-jerk agitating and adolescent tantruming. If someone really, truly can't see the difference between "I don't like the way he ran his campaign because _______" or "I have trouble trusting her because her vote on ________ seemed hypocritical to me and she never explained it in a satisfying way" and "SELLOUT! BUSHLITE! TRAITOR! QUISLING!!1!NO BALLS!!1!", then someone is in need of more remedial classes than DU can give. I'll give such people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're not really that dumb, they're just being dishonest.

2)I'm sick of people saying their point of view is being "censored" when it's only being emphatically disagreed with. (On both sides, sure!) Posting a thread saying "I'm sick of the bashing" is not "censoring" either Jack or Shit.

Only the government can CENSOR speech. Otherwise it's self-regulation or (as in many cases here) tyranny of the majority. "Censorship" is one of the most misused words in the English language by frightened, defeatist Americans who haven't picked up a dictionary.

So kudos to Withywindle for using a Withy bit of common sense.

Writer.

...but they do what many are doing here: they can CHILL discussions and drive people away from debating important issues.

I'm sure that if we see enough threads like this...more posters will avoid legitimate complaints and discussions about their own party and candidates. This is exactly what the other side does to keep everyone in line.

You're right. It's not censoring. But it IS meant to get the more timid to limit their speech and only bring up 'acceptable' subjects.

Some 'round here have become the 'brownshirts' of DU...attacking those who don't say the right things.

Free speech is a double-edged blade. Those who support Kerry and Clinton get all the space they want or need to present their views. But the other side must be allowed their say without these constant attacks meant to chill discussion.

...and find the repetitive bashing tiresome should just keep quiet then and not dare to counter the arguments or defend the person they admire?


How is this different from the "chilling effect" you talk about?


"Brownshirts?" Oh God, did you just invoke Godwin's Law?

and it makes me sick to my stomach to think how those lily white ass Repugs used that status against John Kerry. May it never happen to another Vet who runs for public office and isn't up Karl Rove's ass.

He represented veterans and it feels personal to some people to see him attacked. My neighbor is a vet and he expressed some of the same emotions that you feel.
But there are people who have issues with Kerry and his campaign and they have a right to express themselves about his mistakes.

As for Kerry, although I understand people being disappointed in him, this reliving of the GE is getting extremely tired. I complained, often, during the campaign about my problems with the way it was being run. I was angry after the election for a while. I was disappointed in the quick concession. But Jesus Christ on a pogo-stick, move the fuck on, already. It's over, how long are you going to be "disappointed" and do you really need to invade every Kerry thread to tell the tale of your personal pain? And by the way, we all know he voted for IWR, we don't need to be endlessly reminded of it. So did a LOT of Dems.

Clinton, I don't touch. He's my man, despite his flaws, and if people don't like it, fuckem. If he helps his wife, that's his job, imho.

Hillary, I don't like. I helped put her in office and I'm dreading her run for POTUS, but I'm holding my fire for if and when that happens. I will criticize her for her horrible votes in the meantime, like I would any of them.

As a Clark supporter, there is always, always, some joker who wants to drag up the handful of issues that have been either debunked, refuted or otherwise argued to death for a year and a half, now. I'm sick of dreading even seeing a Clark thread on this forum because I know that there is a 75% chance that it will be derailed into a flamefest with this shit. This just isn't fair, to me. Am I supposed to feel bad there are a lot of Clarkies on DU? Should I apologize for their enthusiasm? Don't hold your breath.

As far as I'm concerned, "so-and-so for 2008" threads are fair game, as long as the criticism doesn't descend into right-wing talking points against Dems, something that I've seen too much of here lately.

Makes sense, and thank you. As for what you said about how you feel about Clark, and when you see the Clark threads, we can all identify when it comes to our favorite candidate, and the attacks we have all suffered by fellow Democrats - not for attacking their favorite Dem - but simply for having a different favorite ourselves. It shouldn't be that way.

Well said, incapsulated.

I personally love Kerry and Clinton, and while we are all free to have our opinions about who our favorite Democratic leaders are, I don't like to go out of my way to tear apart any particular in individual even if I don't prefer them.

Just MHO.

I do feel sad when I see supporters of Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc at each other's throats and bickering as if we were on opposite sides of the whole political spectrum. I think all these individuals are great Democrats, all with wonderful assets to bring to the party, and I'm proud to claim each and every one of them as "our guys."

i think there's much more critisizm then actual bashing - much like is the case with religion.

or does critisizm = hating?
one would think so if one would believe the Bush gang.

...love, worship or support Kerry and Clinton all you want. That's your right. But how nasty can you get when you suggest that others quit saying things you don't like or LEAVE?

We live in a country where free speech is almost extinct and you're demanding that other DUers think a certain way or they can go to another board? I wonder if you even understand that this is what the OTHER SIDE does to those who fail to march in lockstep or refuse to follow the party line?

Many of us came to this board long ago after other boards were taken over by people JUST LIKE you...people who wouldn't tolerate any kind of dissent.

It's a sad day when we have board monitors like you telling us what is acceptable. That's not what this board is about. That's not what independent thought or critical thinking is about.

Chafee voting for Bolton is Kerry's fault now!

& I did not bash Kerry.

I disagreed with a strategy he used.

After all, winning is about strategies used & are they effective or not.

I explained my reasons, & I haven't changed my opinion.

The Dem strategy of behind the scenes work to get Jim Jeffords to jump was very effective, IMO.

Some of the best strategy is done quietly, without a lot of publicity & flash.

Action with good reults is effective.

Action without good results is sometimes just action for action's sake.

You state in your post that this may be Kerry's fault, though it is not obvious why, given that Chafee had stated LONG BEFORE the calls that he would vote for Bolton.

You never link anything that even says what Kerry said or did (I would be happy to read it). The only reference I got about an action is a reference of an ad paid by George Soros.

There may be plenty of reasons why Chafee changed his mind, and your first reflex is to attribute that to Kerry. If this is not Kerry's bashing, what is it?

Edit: here is the only article I have seen referring to an email from Kerry.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/06/gop_senator_may_oppose_un_choice/

GOP senator may oppose UN choice

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | April 6, 2005

My point was Kerry's strategy, which I thought was ineffective.

I could provide 100 links to Kerry's lack of effective strategy during the past few years. I didn't think that would be very diplomatic, & I don't like to set up bash threads; that wasn't my intention.

As a Clark supporter, who is upset when people endlessly criticize, I get frustrated too.

But Kerry was our nominee...I supported him, but I was disappointed in his poor grasp of what it takes to win.

IMO, Kerry is an issues person...I believe that is his strong suit...you could see it during the debates, when he blew Bush away.

However, I don't think he is a natural born politician, as Clinton was. And a natural politician not only connects with people, he is behind the scenes a masterful strategist.

I happen to think Kerry's use of email alerts all the time is a lot of smoke & mirrors. For instance: the child health issue. We are in a record deficit, spending is being slashed on all domestic programs. What is the likelihood of Kerry getting this issue passed? Zip, nada.
It is however, a call to his loyal supporters to prove he is doing something. I for one, wish he would concentrate on what is doable, not what makes headlines.

Bush won, not on issues, but on the strategy of his campaign, & the effectiveness of how it was carried out. And don't let anyone tell you that it is all Rove's doing. Bush learned at the hand of Lee Atwater, & has been in this game longer than people give him credit for.

Issues are damn important, but strategy wins elections.

I questioned his strategy & said "it may have backfired."

"MAY": Perhaps, could be, maybe, etc.

Is that the mantra the party is taking now? Typically speaking I rarely bash either one of them, although I have issues with them both.

Kerry is a decent guy. I didn't support him in the primaries because I didn't feel he was strong on the issues and some of the stands he took (Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc.) were (and still are) inexcusable. I didn't feel he was someone who would step up to the plate and take a stand. That is what I admired about Dean -- he was clear. He was outspoken. He was aggressive. I admired -- no I loved -- Teresa much more than I did her husband.

As the election returns came in I was only slightly sad that Kerry wouldn't be President. Most of my sadness was reserved for Teresa. I was sad because the country wouldn't get to experience a REAL First Lady. I love Teresa because she is an authentic woman. If I had a daughter that's who I'd want to be her role model. Teresa is strong, independent, intelligent, charismatic and has one of the most beautiful souls that you could possibly ever hope to see -- these just scratch her surface and the words do not even remotely do her justice.

However, I do have many issues with the Clintons. They seem hell bent on moving the party to the right, and that is something I am opposed to. Well, they say the "center", but as the Republicans move further and further to the right the "center" moves with them. I can respect Clinton for his economic policies (even though the respect would be better placed with those who actually thought them up), but that is where my respect for him ends. I think much of the timidness of our party can be laid squarely at his feet. The fear of speaking out and being labeled "radical" or "liberal" seems to have paralyzed many of our leaders. The fear of "drifting to far from the center" is killing us.

Clinton's stance on gays is inexcusable. Telling John Kerry to go out and in every small town denounce gay people and gay marriage is something that I will not tolerate. I admire Kerry for NOT taking that advice. (And I sincerely hope Teresa told Bill to "shove it" when he offered it.)

Hillary is more liberal than her husband but she does not stray to far from him. Both of them are more than happy to sell out democratic values for political capital. Hillary is already trying to position herself "to the center" for a Presidential run in 2008. (A lot of good that will do her, despite the fact that she is center left in her positions compared to many others she's an "extremist".)

I believe in taking strong and bold stands. I believe in stating in no uncertain terms where we are going and where we are heading both as a party and as a country. I believe in letting the Republicans have it at every opportunity. That isn't extremism that's being the opposition. The Clintons would rather deal in compromises -- I don't believe in compromising Democratic Values. I think it should be rather obvious now why the Clintons and I clash so deeply.

On a final note, and I mean no malice by saying this because it is just a suggestion, I believe in the future when asking people to stop bashing someone you like it might be wise not to bash them back. Especially if you are going to try and get your point across with profanity. I understand that tempers flare from time to time but I think we can (and should) conduct ourselves in a more mature fashion. Just a suggestion.

I agree with you that responding to bashing with bashing can never work. I think if everyone wrote as you do, this board would be better. As someone who liked Kerry and Dean, but who ended up preferring Kerry, your Kerry critisisms address votes he made and are absolutely not offensive. The Clinton comments, likewise address votes and things they have done.

What's great about this is that the converation can then continue in positive directions. There was a long thread within the Kerry group itself talking about the IWR a few months ago. In the security and comfort of that environment, many of us who opposed the war were able to discuss what was really a no win vote for all the Democrats. I personally would have preferred that after backing the Lugar/Biden version of teh bill, he would have voted no on the IWR. On the Patriot act, they were compelled to act too fast, so they put in a sunset clause. Kerry in particular got a lot of the anti-money laundering stuff that he had fought (unsuccessfully) for to stop terroists access to money flow. Hindsight being 20/20 this bill contained some provisions that take away rights and privacy and in what has become a paranoid state, they are scary.

I agree with you on Teresa and really hate the way she was treated so badly. Maybe the NSN felt if they would have covered her accomplishments and allowed people to see her, it may have had the same effect as it did when people met her face to face in Iowa. There were reports of many people giving Kerry a second look because they loved Teresa. I agree that Teresa would be a great role model and as a couple the obvious respect they showed each other would have been nice too.

I don't support anyone attacking anyone else. I rarely participate in such things and I do my best to avoid them. I frankly don't care who supports who. We're all on the same ship and we're all sailing in the same direction. I don't really care who is the current captain as long as he is sailing it in the direction that we want him to.

I'm some what neutral on Kerry. His biggest problem, in regard to me at least, is his lackluster ability to inspire and motivate me. Inspiring and motivating supporters is something that any leader should strive to achieve. I want to feel empowered. Dean did this for me. Sharpton was even better. Obama is good as well. He should take notes. I believe that all the years he has spent in the Senate has tempered him in such a way that he comes off as some what overly serious and lacking in passion. I think he has it in him, but he just needs to learn how to tap into it. He needs to get passionate about something and really let it flow. Really let lose. Tap into his anger over the 2004 Election and set out to knock Bush off his pedestal. He is trying to show us that he is a leader by sending us e-mails of what he is currently working on. That's great! However, how does that help him when it comes to the general public? He needs to get out there and talk about these things. Thrust them into the public eye. Pick an issue (any issue!) and take a strong stand. I think if just one Democrat comes out swinging at the Administration that others will follow.

That leads me to my slight disappointment in Dean. I had hoped once he became the Chair that he would set out to smack down every action taken by Bush and his cronies. Fight him tooth and nail. However, it seems he is content to keep a low profile. That disappoints me.

My beef with the Clintons is obvious. Clinton and his actions on gay rights (and me being gay) has obviously left a bad taste in my mouth. Add to the fact that the DLC would like nothing more than to shove us ALL onto a ship and send us to some remote European Country and the Clinton's involvement with them... well... I can't say we'll ever be the best of friends. The DLC in my eyes is an impediment to the party and everything we are trying to achieve. I will be celebrating the day they finally collapse.

Anyway, I don't mean to ramble but it is like I said. We are all on the same ship. There is no need to let our differences turn into huge shouting and bashing matches. No one wins those.

I would give Dean more time. He may well be working on laying a foundation that will enable him and others to fight the Republicans later this year and next. He also might be working behind the scenes to mend some of the riffs in the party. If he's doing this I am thankful that it is private and quiet. (There was a very inappropriate level of negative noise from the professional Democrats such as James Car ville, Donna Brazil, and others. They spent almost as much time before the election complaining about the campaign and the candidate in the press as they did acting as surrogates. I still can't imagine how they thought this was helpful.)

I actually am inspired by Kerry, but realize that one comment that I forgot the source of is very apt. One reporter wrote that with Kerry there was a group of people who "got" who he was who were intensely loyal while many people were just not inspired by him. I am glad that he and Teresa are still working on good issues, because if he has any success at all, it will help whoever the candidate is if Democrats have some positive things to point at.

... of people who try to stifle dissent because their chosen one is found lacking by a lot of DUer's?

I know I sure am. What is the point of even starting such a thread, why don't you defend your guys in the bashing threads?

You are no better than them.

like they do in the GOP?

:sarcasm:

would it be fair to assume that, when many of us who hated Kerry's vote for the IWR, didn't support him in the primaries, and still worked for him and sent him money in the general election as ABB voters, you were asking us to "just leave" ???????????????????

is "just leave" how you plan to make progress in the Party? do you think that "just leave" will attract the tens of millions of people who no longer vote back to the Party?

you say you're "sick of the Clinton/Kerry bashers" ... why do you think people bash certain politicians? do you think they don't like Kerry because he "looks French"? you make it sound like it's personal ... it is not personal; it's about the issues ... under the Democratic Party's so called "big tent", we have a very real, and perhaps very bitter, difference of opinion on many key issues ... and many Democrats, especially those on the left, have felt like the Party and many of its leaders have failed not only to represent them but to even listen to them ...

your juvenile whining about those who criticize certain Democrats is exactly what the Party does NOT need ... the only solution you've offered is to tell those who won't blindly go along to "just leave" ... that's an interesting political strategy ... "if we had fewer voters, we'd have more voters" ...

the alternative to the partisan whining and "just leave" non-solution you've offered is to try to reform the Party to make it more democratic ... unlike your disrespectful, whining bullshit about how people are looking for the "perfect" candidate, understand that what people are really looking for is a more representative process ... this does NOT mean that the Party will move to the left ... it does NOT mean that those seeking a greater voice will have their way ... it does NOT mean that anyone is "demanding perfection" ... what it does mean is that the rift you have correctly acknowledged but failed to make suggestions to improve needs to be healed ... and you won't get that by telling other Democrats to "just leave" ...

instead of making the rift larger with all your whining, why not call for Party reform and put forward some suggestions to heal the rift that exists ...

if they want to bash Clinton so badly, FR would love to hear it.

at least half the Kerry bashing I've seen done here is justified. I admit that I was completely ABB and never liked Kerry to begin with, but how do you lose an election when you smoke an incumbent (whom the country hates) in three debates?

I've got my own theories on that, but they'll just piss some of you off. Suffice it to say that I believe Kerry's ineptitude as a candidate cost us four years of progress, and for that he deserves some spite. I further think Edwards, Clark or any one of at least five or six other Dems could have beaten the Resident Select.

-The country doesn't hate Bush, about 45% of the country does

-You concede that Kerry smoked Bush in the 3 debates, which were the only time he had a level playing field with Bush. Kerry was phenomenal in the debates. They alone made it close. Edwards was nowhere near as good in his debate. In the primaries, each had very little time, but Kerry was clearly the most proficient debater. Ordinarily this would not matter as much but this year it was about the only time the democrat was given a fair deal. (unless Bush was wired.)

-Kerry had the RW media circus against him from day 1 of the campaign
His speeches and rallies were given almost no coverage, while Bush got at least 2 major unfiltered speeches because he declared that they were policy talks (not campaign) although they were his new stump speech. Since the election, it is clear that Bush use every part of the government (illegally) from having terror alerts whenever Kerry was doing well to using Government money to pay broadcasters to support him.

Our country has serious problems ahead and people find it necessary to rehash the same old stories. They can think whatever they want, I stopped listening a long time ago (same thing when it goes to Dean bashers, Clark bashers, Gore bashers, or whoever ).

It is really getting old. I cant believe this thread is still alive, but nobody has been talking about Frist inviting Barton (one of the leader of the RW anti separation of State and Church movement) to the Senate and of Lautemberg awesome speech on the Senate floor about that.

...or the even more fanciful charge that they are "liberals".

But as for progressives who have a problem with their shameless support of Bush's war, and in Clinton's case, the continuation of a watered-down form of Reaganomics through the 90's, NO. DLCer's and warmongers need to be called on their failures and their betrayal of progressive ideals.

Clinton's attempt to give legitimacy to Bush's obviously false WMD claims was SHAMEFUL. Clinton is a brilliant man, and I'm 100% sure he knew better.

I never bash Democrats. And I question the wisdom (and more) of those who do.

then they (and their supporters) are going to have to deal with the repercussions, be they positive or negative.

I find your post amusing, because the few times I have posted legitimate concerns about Kerry the responses have been overwhelmingly vitriolic. So the term "bashing" is misleading, because what I have observed is that all posts critical of Kerry are treated as an excuse to attack instead of an opportunity to discuss or debate.

A candidate will always have detractors; that comes with the territory. If your (and I use that term in a generic sense) candidate is so fabulous, disapproving comments should roll off your back. The only reason I can think of for this level of hostility is that some of our comments are hitting a little too close to home.

I mean seriously, Freepers love to Bash Clinton, followed by either Kerry or Carter. Though they'll probably talk less about Kerry than they will about Carter. Nevermind that Carter gave them their precious M1A1 MBT that they love to use to play tin pot dictator with. Awww hell.

I'll give you one example. There was a knee jerk response to Harry Reid , D, NV as Senate Majority Leader. There was a vigorous debate on DU and by the time it was over, Reid was looking pretty good. He opposed Gonzales, debated on Boxer's side on Ohio, called out the RNC, called out Greenspan, got near total discipline on Social Security, and is ready to go to total war to stop from getting rolled on crappy judges.

The knee jerk response was he's a Western conserviative, won't fight, bla bla bla. Well, since 2000 he's fighting more than any other than Senators Byrd, Welstone, and Graham.

I say more critical anlaysis. Why because we need...

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

:popcorn:
All I can say is Kerry is Da Man! Hilary is Da woman! Go ahead and flame me! WWWWWWhheeeeeeeee!