When oh WHEN will we stop eating our own?

It absolutely amazes me the way we have spent weeks (present company included) arguing amongst ourselves over Edwards and Clark. Last time I checked, they were BOTH fighting to get Bush out of office. That makes them part of our team. Yet the second, and I do mean second, I take the middle ground and try to say something nice about Edwards, I get attacked by someone from my own camp.

Come on people! We are the reasonable folk - the ones who recognize the Bush Admin for what it is and are fighting to end their regime. Let's not get so involved in the sidelines of VP arguments that we forget we're playing on the same team.

Isn't it time to grow up now?

That was possibly the worst period for DU. The VP war is a million times better than that of the nominee.

It seems like it's resurfacing... many of the old wounds are being re-opened, and many of the same attack lines.... SOA, man-boobs, baby channeling, melt-downs...

who feel that they have a stake in keeping Dems at each other's throats.

I don't believe that we are all that far apart as the DU arguing would indicate. Like I said, we are being subtley manipulated to be angry at each other, which ditracts us from being angryat the Bushster.

I DO believe we all have basically the same agenda politically. As I have said elsewhere, I think that's the reason there were (and are) so many accusations of our candidates "stealing" other's positions. Because the differences are quite small, for the most part. (IWR is the exception in my mind.)

It's a good thing for the party. Eventually the party structure will begin to reflect the more progressive nature of its constituents, I hope.

For me, at least, the war is still the elephant in the room. Kerry's been pretty much right down the middle on this -- I don't like it, but I can tolerate it.

If he picks a pro-war VP and they march to the general election with a "War good, occupation bad" message, they'll lose me.

I think it's a legitimate issue, and is worth fighting over.

But we are all fighting for the same goal -A Bushless Whitehouse.

I still feel that there are disruptors in our midsts.

The Republicans and corporate controlled media have been working overtime to try to get Kerry to pick their dream candidate (and his name isn't Wes Clark).

The stakes are just to darn high this time to sit back and remain silent. Since Rove (and others) have paid operatives actively working the various boards I feel that I, as just another average citizen, should be able to have my say on a matter of such importance.

Some one like Mike Webb? If you did or even listened to a moderate show like in Washington we have Dave Ross, who's heard on CBS stations, you will hear conservatives or GOP supporters who claim that the Liberal media is control of everything and they have a fixed agenda against Bush.

The fact is the media is more interested in making money then anything else.

Kerry will decide which candidate he wants and it won't have anything to do with the Right or Left media. If you don't believe that Kerry has the ability to see through everything and pick who he believes is best then you have no faith in Kerry to begin with.

There are many factors to be considered and depending on how you look at things Clark, Edwards, Gephardt and others...even Graham would be good picks. But it's not the media. That is an excuse that is used by both the Right and the Left and it a lame excuse that means you have no good argument to back up your position.

so tired of hearing about how we all are victims of the media. Yes, they are corporations who have great control over the flow of information, but we aren't all sheep being led to the slaughter. Certainly most campaign folks know about manipulating the media for their own benefit as well. And the media's motive is always money and expediency. (Except for stations like FOX who truly have a political ideology)

oh, but then it will be all the reasons Kerry is bad for choosing the wrong person. Sometimes don't you wonder why we even post?

I'm a person of the left (leftist, liberal, progressive whatever) but above all I'm a pragmatist. To me elective politics is as much about preventing bad stuff from happening as it is about doing good stuff. Many people here have unrealistic expectations about how progressive our government can be. If this current government can't convince liberals - ALL LIBERALS - that the GOP must be stopped this November then nothing will.

where you took the middle ground position as you say. I didin't agree with it 100%, but there is something to what you said. Anyways I certainly wouldn't attack you over it. After a few days earlier this week rumblin, I started to tone it down yesterday and I agree with any efforts to do that. :)

you reeeaaaaaaaaaaly have to stretch. It ain't all bad to try, is it? Or perhaps, it is?

I worry more about Kerry....can he win? Is he the one that can? Bush's commercials are running all over Cable News..CNN, MSNBC..and not just Fox.

are working overtime to get Kerry to pick a candidate which they can use oh so effectively to negatively define Kerry.

If they win, prepare yourself for ads targeting the VP and his inability to assume the role of commander-in-chief in a time of crisis and the corporate media endlessly praising Bush for being a confident enough man to have a strong VP, to put the needs of our country before his own desires not to be overshadowed.... (and I'm sure you can just imagine what they are going to say about Kerry).

He's spent more time in undisclosed locations than he'd care to mention. I think even the Right know well enough not to open up that can of worms.

The VP will serve to 1) Highlight Kerry's strengths 2) firm up Kerry's weaknesses 3) attack Cheney (not a tough job, I'm sure) 4) stir up voter confidence and 5) give Kerry about 3weeks of free publicity following the announcement

If Kerry chooses wisely (and he will), Cheney will have little in the way of comparison, and volumes in the way of deficit.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of other threads for discussing this. I think the purpose of this thread was to tone down the in-fighting going on here at DU, if possible.

:toast:

But yours sounds better ;)

and I guess it is inevitable. This thread, like every other in GD2004 is going to turn into the same old same old!

Oh well, venting is good right?
:toast:

I don't give a rip who he picks. Shoot, even Lieberman would be palatable. The only one he could conceivably name that would turn me off completely would be Thomas DeLay.

Bush has got to go.

However, if he wants my support once Bush is gone, he's gong to have to do a better job than Clinton did of addressing the transfer of wealth away from labor and toward capital. Restoring the Clinton 1.6% tax hike on the wealthy in addition to eliminating all W's tax cuts for those making over $200,000/year along with raising the minimum wage to a still laughably low $7.00/hour is a good start. He'll have to fix the tax code if he wants my vote in 2008, though.

This year, I'd vote for the dust ball at the top of the ticket.

who the pukes will put forth when they realize the chimp is a liability instead of an asset. One (or more) of the possible treasonous atrocities that are looming will certainly bite this cartels butts before the election.

The best judgements any of us can make will still be little more than grasping at straws in vain attempts to read the tea leaves, not to mix my metaphors or anything. There is no one who has been seriously mentioned with whom I would have a specific problem other than John McCain.

I suspect that Kerry's judgement will be good and he will select someone who could step into the job if need be who will also be an asset during the election. This is certainly no reason for any acrimony whatsoever.