So whatever happened to "Dem_Strategist?"

Did he/she give up on DU?

Some of our number got rather...ummm..."candid" with that person. Candid to a fault.

You might have noticed a few of the results lately.

Having to put those poor Strategists to work...giving them all this "input" and lots of great ops research as well.

Great article, Will. Hope you're feeling a little warm & fuzzy...but not too much, yet.

:)

Not one of the high points of this place, although what ended up happening was regretfully predictable.

I thought I had remembered him saying that he didn't work on the campaign. What did the people here have against him?

how many helping hands were turned away?

I suspect.

:eyes:

Found none...and moved on to where they could generate some...pretty much a pox on some of the asses that post here...as one who has worked on several elections, I'd have moved on the first night after the reception that person received even after admin vouched for them...I might also add...given that admin vouched for them and things seem to be going much better for Kerry and he was able to survive August and September with the limited funds he had...maybe some of our more audible armchair activists DON'T know what it will take to win.

If Dem Strategist WAS who they said they were (as vouched for by Pitt and Admin) then obviously they do know a thing or two about pulling it out of one's ass when the odds are stacked against one.

all people did was piss and moan. Some DUers did expose themselves as armchair activists who refuse to do anything constructive when asked.

Just enough of them to create sufficient static the threads that people who did care were trying to contribute to collapsed under their own weight.

I figured the 'Two Faced' theme might have germinated around that time, frankly, and Dem_Strategist may have been looking for help disseminating it.

maybe some of our more audible armchair activists DON'T know what it will take to win.

The people here are far smarter than Kerry and his gang of inept, cowardly advisers. If it wasn't for the stalwart efforts of the message board geniuses here, Kerry would still be bent over and grabbing his ankles, running a "Dukakis-like campaign." It took the robust vocal efforts of the chicken littles here to shake Kerry out of his windsurfing stupor, make him listen to the cacophony of conflicting and foolish demands, and then obey all of them. That's what got him going.

Personally, I think we all owe a big "---- you" (I swear that word is "thank"!) to the armchair strategists here. If they hadn't stepped up and given the Kerry campaign the benefit of their wisdom, intellect, years of political experience, and above all, finely tuned political judgment, who knows where we would be?

every other candidate except John Kerry would have it sewn up by now :evilgrin: must.not.say.I.told.you.so.yet.

the Kerry primies deserve it!

I wasn't a Kerry primary supporter, but came very close to it (had my ANTI-candidate been close in AZ, Kerry would have gotten my primary vote with nary a regret).

there's plenty of gloating going on.

Do you really think ANYONE on the Kerry campaign is setting around reading what people on DU think or actually listening to the thousands of crackpots who call into the Kerry offices every day to tell them how to run a campaign? Does someone need a reality check?

The people who made a difference are the ones who are out there volunteering. People who sit at home and bitch about Kerry's bad campaign are doing NOTHING to help him win. If you're volunteering on the campaign, then thank you for your efforts. That is much more meaningful than any amount of chatting on DU.

I suspect that they are even if it isn't immediately apparent.

Witness "two-faced" Bush; who, if anyone, beat DU to it?

And Billy, that is saying something.

I'm pretty sure it was..

because I have heard shit like that here before, from people who meant it.

But if Billy comes on and says he means it, then I'll say i was wrong..

There is a lot of wisdom here, I agree.

But many took the fact that their "pet" idea/issue/meme/you-name-it wasn't immediately seized upon by the campaign as a slap in the face, and DemStrategist got the slapping..

As a new poster, I always appreciate people who take clear stands so I know who I can confidently ignore.

Haven't got the shotgun rack yet, and a black guy driving around in a pickup truck with a Confederate flag on it would look funny, else I'd already have on of those stickers.

If it makes you feel any better though, my gas bill is pretty bad these days. So please, please don't put me on ignore! It would hurt my feelings something awful.

For some odd reason I remember many present and former DUers maintaining that the then Team Kerry had in place an ultra-sophistcated form of political judo chess and that those who advocated a more direct, aggressive, and even Clintonesque approach were silly "armchair strategists."

Thank God the judo chess approach was not angrily repudiated by the candidate. Thank God the architects of that strategy were not shifted to other duties within the campaign. Thank God the campaign staff was not augmented by people who subscribe to to an approach similar to what the "armchair strategists" were advocating. Otherwise we'd have no shot of winning.

I realize that the judo chess advocates would never, ever try to claim credit for the success of an approach they ridiculed, so my memory must have things ass backwards. I'm just thankful that their view prevailed in the mind of our candidate, and that the results are now starting to show.

following the convention and AFTER they were BOTH limited in funds?

unfrigginreal

You have no idea..none...zero...nada....zilch...as to what Kerry's plans were...he ADDED people...he didn't let anyone go...as I recall people were calling for Mary Beth Cahill's head...she is still very much on the staff...this campaign is reminiscint of OTHER Kerry campaigns where he withstood the attacks then moved in for the kill shortly before the election.

With spin like that they should put you on the payroll.

yourself.

that's true. :hi:

your belief system wishes to dictate otherwise

is no better than me citing his embracing the "armchair strategists" suggestions as proof, regardless of what your belief system dictates that my belief system dictates.

that so many at DU possess.

I guarantee they predicted Kerry's primary victory long before it happened and knows precisely what Kerry's closing statement in the debate tonight will be, as well as the results of the general election in all the 'safe' states.

without it getting deleted. Hothead, ya know. :-)

The constant distortion and derision of the term "political judo" here reminds me of Bush desperately spinning the phrase "global test."

"Political judo" is about picking your battles and using finesse at times, aggression at others. No one, here or with the Kerry campaign, ever advocated the passive approach you, and the other
Bushesque distorters, claim we were. Everyone with a triple digit IQ (which unfortunately excludes more here than I would like) knew going in that August was going to be a cruel month (with apologies to Eliot) because of the funding situation. We also fully expected Kerry to come out swinging in September, which he did.

Of course by viciously attacking Kerry in August, you set yourself up in a no-lose situation. If Kerry never recovered, you called it. If Kerry did recover, it was because he must have adopted your brilliant approach. In fact, from what I can see Kerry made some cosmetic changes to his campaign to calm the nervous nellies like yourself, and stuck to the plan he had all along. The same people, Shrum and Cahill, are calling the shots, his message is the same, he's simply getting traction because of the avalanche of bad news from Iraq, and the ass kicking Bush took in the debate.

You should claim credit for the debates and Iraq news, too. It would be par for the course, and would require no more integrity or intellect than you've displayed so far

People think Kerry was surprised by the Swift Scum...he knew they were there. He knew them and what they were capable of better than anyone. He's been taking their shit for 30 years.

He let them throw EVERYTHING at him. Did some of it stick? Sure. With those it was going to stick with anyway?

I have no complaints.

Which is not to say I don't admire your amazing Judo Chess.

But since you decided to attack lil' ol' me personally, I guess I'll respond and thus risk further placeputting via the edge of your Gillette Trak 3 intellect. So here I go down the long slide like a free bloody bird:

"Political judo" is about picking your battles and using finesse at times, aggression at others."

Judo chess was an excuse. This excuse and the term were first used in a thread specifically intended to defend the way the campaign approached the SBL issue, a thread in which the OP made the specific point that letting the SBL attacks roll was part of a strategy called "political judo," through which the SBL's would boomerang on Bush. Didn't work. Pissed of many dems. Cost us votes. Pissed off Kerry. Was Fixed.

"...by viciously attacking Kerry in August..."

We dim bulb Nervous Nellies (One can only assume you put Carville, Carrick, and dozens of others others squarely in this group since they expressed, without consulting DU apparently, similar sentiments) love Kerry, which is why we attacked the ex-strategy that so angered the candidate that he viciously attacked it, ordered his staff to change it, and just in case they missed it, leaked that order to the press. Then he brought in a communications team renowned for their unpassive approach.

Augment. I love the word Augment.

My favorite part of the whole soap opera (which you leave out, of course) was the part where a semi-coordinated attack on "armchair strategists" and "nervous nellies" was launched by a few people oddly unsettled by what people were saying on an Internet message board.

"If Kerry never recovered, you called it. If Kerry did recover, it was because he must have adopted your brilliant approach."

Here you manage, if unintentionally, to say something completely true. And I didn't even have to take the 80 percent pay cut to put my
sweet little fingerprints all over the 2004 presidential race.

"Shrum and Cahill, are calling the shots, his message is the same, he's simply getting traction because of the avalanche of bad news from Iraq, and the ass kicking Bush took in the debate."

Bobby? That you? C'mon. Don't sell those-who-are-still-in-charge short. Kerry rebounded simply because of external forces? His message is the same? If I didn't know how amazingly classy folks can be, I'd almost think somebody would rather imply Team Kerry's work is still irrelevant than give credit to others.....coughlikejoelockheartmikemccurrycough...excuse me.

All joviality aside, everybody, no matter how many digits of IQ they're packing, knows what really happened no matter how much judo chess you pile on it: The strategy was not working. The candidate recognized the strategy was not working. Changes were made. The new strategy is working. And some people will, like bush, say that black is white instead of admitting that were too damn stupid to get it.

Ad populum, the first refuge of the mentally lazy.

Since the strategy has changed, show what was changed. You left that part out of a long post that ended up saying nothing. If the strategy has changed, point out specifics. If Shrum and Cahill are not calling the shots, prove it. You made the claim, now back it up.

The jobs numbers came out today and they sucked. Was this part of the "strategy change" too?

He's playing judo or chess somewhere.

Fortunately, the Kerry campaign finally did what needed to be done instead of sitting around playing tiddly-winks. They took a new, desperately needed approach. Once Kerry started actively fighting back, the Chimperor has been sliding down.

IOW, people you don't know

Many DUers don't like playing student to the tutor. I really enjoyed her/his insights, and am sad (s)he is gone. :(

on edit: I think I get it. They were being "catty". Am I right?

eom

I enjoyed reading those threads. I really took the message that "the media is the real enemy" to heart; it's absolutely true.

Too bad some DUers couldn't keep their asshole glands from acting up.

there was a reason why I quit even readin' his threads....

When "perception" was just as important.

a bunch of out spoken armchair strategist that lurk about.

Ridiculous. People come and go of their own free will. D_S obviously didn't find what he/she was looking for (whatever that was) at DU and moved on.

I call what happened to them and how it played out as being "forced out".

D_S is an adult, and can come and go as he or she pleases. True, many acted like assholes during D_S's stay, but that's the nature of internet message boards, if you hadn't noticed. I wish D_S would've stuck around, but nobody was "forced out". Likely, he/she got disgusted with the actions of a few and left.

I thought many were unfair, but that is the culture on a board like DU.

I've quietly slipped away many times, but then I find I can't stay away.

I think you're at the cutting edge, and that's usually where the action happens.


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

Once Kerry did what many influential Democrats, as well as those of us here not impressed by DS, suggested, Kerry started gaining traction.

Kerry will win by taking the attack to Bush*, not sitting around playing "judo" or "recognizing the media is the enemy". DS was just another guy with an opinion--and a wrong one at that.

Those armchair strategists wanted Kerry to say his IWR vote was a mistake (he didn't), to call bush* a "liar" (he didn't), to call for a withdrawal from Iraq (he didn't), to support gay marriage (he didn't), and a number of other things Kerry did not do.

I didn't want Kerry to do any of those things you mention. What I did want him to do was to go after the SwiftScum IMMEDIATELY and not let them gain traction. I also wanted him to start taking the attack to Bush*. My approach has been vindicated.

Your post and several others like it in this thread are examples of why making generalizations like yours don't reflect well on the generalizers.

What I saw was a lot of people wanting to hear Kerry say clearly that the war was a bad idea (he did), to call Bush on his lies (he did), to call for a withdrawal from Iraq (he's vowed no permanent presence), to support gay marriage -- well, I'll give you that.

People just wanted some more punch out of his campaign, however they phrased it. Starting with the NYU speech, he's been delivering it. Do you deny that there was a change, and that it had positive results?

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

who winge when anyone criticises their opinions robustly. Allegedly because peope don't like them thinking outside the square!

Politics is hardball by its very nature. If you can't take the heat.... It wasn't a question of rancour, which is seldom called for. It was a question of slapping them down when they're talking counterproductive tripe. Just the required practical response. It's like theology. There's too much at stake for "after you, Claud". There is even a latin expresion for the rage that was sometimes expressed between disputing Fathers of the Church, the successors of the apostles, in their theological disputes: "Ira theologicorum" or some such.

It doesn't mean they are not respected on any or every other level. Just that when their presumption becomes a menace, they need to be told in no uncertain terms that there are people such as dem-strategist who have forgotten more about running a successful campaign than we'll ever know, and it was a godsend of a privilege they scorned!

It was also difficult to distinguish between them and the neocon trolls... I'm thinking here about the mindless supine twaddle they talked about Meals on Wheel's abject performance agains Edwards. Why he even looked abject physically, hunched over his desk. The pointed way in which he addressed "Gwen", in a tone of voice that proclaimed "I'm not including that beastly man next to me" reminded me of a spoiled brat who takes his bat and ball home because the other lads wouldn't do what he wanted.

But, to revert to that business with dem-strategist, their reaction to that kind offer of collaboration from a top "pro" wasn't hardball. It wasn't even softball. It was p*ssing into the wind, when that wind is blowing a forest fire in your direction.

I found the assholes thread. Hi all!

if demstrategist is who i always thought it was.

Who else did he hire recently (fairly recently)

I know it wasn't Carville LOL his/her posts weren't filled with enough colorful metaphors to be Carville!

i don't know anything for sure or have any personal info. so it's only what i think .

But I always thought DS was a woman--I have no idea why I thought that but it was my impression!

Dem Strategist threads, but..

People have a right to their opinion. I can't imagine DUers chasing someone away. Anyone who supported a particular candidate during the primaries took some amount of heat, and we all stuck it out.

As for there being armchair strategists on DU, in hindsight I'd say that the naysayers played their part and Kerry played his. Revival (as in staging a comeback) is a strategy that Kerry has used to great effect throughout his political career. I don't believe it's a coincidence, because I happen to think he possesses a great tactical mind.

Oh the drama and the intrigue by those who have an "inside connection". An anonymous person who was not willing to identify themself apparently met with some questioning and butting. Then that anonymous, supposed influential person, left in a huff, apparently, insulted by those who questioned.

Never was anyone advised as to the wonderous biography of this mysterious and influential person who some dramatically imply is a responsible and important person on the Kerry campaign. Oh my goodness--that is reason to NOT question! LOL

Other forums I have read are advised by people who identify themself and do not seek automatic adoration because they claim to be someone, yet still post anonymously. They with all pride, identify themself.

Thank goodness for those who are free thinkers, skeptics and who question.

There is no guilt because someone who thinks they have a higher, priveledged grip on the minds of posters, tells them they should be ashamed for a natural and human reaction to an anonymous poster's ideas, who others with a claimed insider knowledge, assert is an important and influential person in the Kerry campaign.

Do you think both Will and the Admins of DU were lying about Dem Stragegist's cred?

What was the evidence upon which they gained that voucher? Apparently it was too secret to tell us, which, IMHO, is one of the reasons few believed him/her - we're not a very trusting bunch, and for damn good reason.


http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

I'm sure they would be glad to answer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=998697&mesg_id=998697

I've been dead wrong for years.

Or something.

:grr:

but since you mentioned Pitt, and not me, I will respond to that. I have been here a long time reading. Pitt is not always consistent, I am sorry to say because he does have a group of followers that are like fans. There are and have been many things that Pitt has recommended that are simply not feasable or straight. He often changes his opinion like the wind , according to what is the most popular at the time. Further, this drama to me is not exactly reassuring.

Now, I do not read Pitt's threads because they are not to my liking at all. That is simply my personal preference , so I x it out. I just happened to read this one thread and I stand by my observation as a person not involved much with posting to those threads.

If the person was honest, then I wonder why the anonymitity, OK?

What was there to hide, and further,why should people be expected to latch on to this anonymous poster as a valid representative of the Kerry campaign, just because Pitt, a known switcher, or even Skinner, says so.

Should we NOT know who we are speaking with and to?

I still say: thank goodness for the free thinkers, and the skeptics. Not all of us are willing to go along with such secretive, mysterious and dramatic titillation coming from Pitt or even Skinner. Why should we be expected to, when the whole thing is a secret?

Do you know the name of this person? Do you know for a fact that this person was and is an important member of the Kerry campaign? If you do, well please tell me and others here. It would be the fairest thing to do. If not, then back off the criticism of those who are independant thinkers.

And if the opposition was not wanted or accepted by Pitt and others, why then was not anyone told the name of this very important person?

"Pitt is not always consistent, I am sorry to say because he does have a group of followers that are like fans. There are and have been many things that Pitt has recommended that are simply not feasable or straight. He often changes his opinion like the wind , according to what is the most popular at the time."

Prove it.

I did not bring up your name to begin with. It was provided in a post by another poster who was responding to me, and I was responding to that poster's assertions that blind belief in Pitt or Skinner's inside knowledge was grounds to latch on, lemming like, to all the poster was saying.

I stick by my opinion and that is that people were expected to behave in a certain way because Pitt said so, even though the entire thing was without definition as to the identity of the poster who it is asserted to be, by only two persons, a very important person in the Kerry campaign.

To this day, no one has said who that poster was, therefore all skepticism and criticism is valid and not to be dismissed or denigrated with scorn.

It is curious that the poster who all were supposed to blindly believe, never revealed his or her identity.

That is certainly grounds for skepticism and questioning.

Weak.

--how about you back up your criticism of others who question the identity of this anonymous poster, by providing your special inside information re this poster. Until you do, nothing you challenge or bluster about is worthy of replying to. It is a straw man.

"Pitt is not always consistent"

Prove it.

"I am sorry to say because he does have a group of followers that are like fans."

So what?

"There are and have been many things that Pitt has recommended that are simply not feasable or straight."

Proof? You say 'many things.' How about one?

"He often changes his opinion like the wind , according to what is the most popular at the time."

Proof?

That's not a straw man. That's me offering you the dignity to back up what was otherewise a pissy, empty personal attack.

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

is throwing your words in your face.

As for your other tangent, I was asked to keep the identity of Dem_Strategist a secret. It's not some big doom secret, the person simply wanted it that way. Journalists keep their sources secret, especially upon request.

All three admins likewise vouched for this person, and kept the identity quiet for the aforementioned reason: To fulfill the wish of the person involved.

If my word, isn't good enough for you, fine. But the word of all the Admins isn't good enough for you? You must live in a very paranoid world. Why do you even post here if you find the owners so devious?

Now, about your own insulting words...I'm still waiting.

that is the drama--Journalists keep secrets .

But they go on threads and titillate the posters and, additionally, denigrate them for questioning this journalist, good old boy secret society.

uh huh.

No way --I am not buying the denigration of others just because they do not respect the secret journalistic society of the informed who titillate a thread with their "secret" knowledge.

If it was indeed that much of a secret then there was no reason to come on DU and taunt others for not believing in the secret society of journalists with special information that is not presented to them to parse for themself.

If anything, the questioning of the posters should have been as much respected as the "secret".

Any journalist worth their salt, would have considered that rebellion as a part of it all.

It was not and that was because the "secret" and the holder of the "secret" deemed it was more important to be the one who, because of his secret knowledge, could scorn those who were not privy to this mysterious secret.

Not applicable to a thread in a forum like DU.

May be applicable to a blog, but we do not have a blog here.

We have a discussion thread, where all input is valid providing it follows the rules.

P.S. What about all those personal attacks against me?

Forget Will; what about them? The ones who run this board? Do you think they weren't telling the truth about this? Do you think if they knew that Dem Strategist wasn't who he/she says they were they would vouch on this board fom them?

I'm all for Free Thought; I also believe that Will and the admins of DU wouldn't vouch for someone unless he/she is who they say they are. They have too much to lose not to.

some of us are wiser.

I got it; You don't want to answer. Fine. You're non-answer speaks volumes.

than to automatically accept without evidence, the assertions about an anonymous poster and to accept denigration and scorn for doing so.

But I'll take the word of people who actually talked to him/her and checked their cred over someone who says they are lying/were duped but offers no proof to back it up. Just my free thought.

I'm sure you'll understand.

and as a free thinker, you certainly would understand my position.

He was presenting in JK's name positions which were not Kerry's.
He was an apologist for an appauling lack of intuitive action
which crippled the Kerry campaign.

It would be 'stupit' to wash their hands of us... think about it, regardless of their experience.

Nevertheless, Dem strat's "trust me, shut up, do what I say, I'm a biggie" approach was lame. He/she expected too much, too fast. They should have stuck around a while, built up a communication level.

Dem Strategist said s/he didn't work for the Kerry campaign.

Not certain what happeened here, but a sure way to make enemies is to be privy to specific information and then lord your access over others.

It was pretty obviously directed at certain folks. I consider myself pretty good at both, and would rather have plain old truth any day.

It was like saying that unless we played the game by chess rules, we did not matter. I think that got a reaction.

Just tell the truth, don't spin. Guess what, Kerry is doing that more every day now in a clear way....and it is working for him. He is speaking out more forcefully.

Just a little something to think about.

amazing is it not how offended the political commissar class and their enablers get when their cherished ideas are hooted at by uppity commoners?

akin to how george bush reacted thursday night.

And at the time, neither did William Pitt, Billy Bunter, and various other "insiders" (up to and including Mary Beth Cahill and other "experts" who were embarrassingly chastised by their boss, who says he wanted to come out against the Swift Vets from the get-go.)

The reason Dem Strategist raised such hostility was (a) his strategy of getting people to repeat talking points generated by himself was lame and reminds me of countless marketing-speak "experts" I have to deal with in the world of community development; I am not in the least surprised if this is the order of the day in "expert" Democratic circles;

and (b) he was angering everybody on DU because of the timing of it all. Kerry was going down in flames over the Swift Vet publicity, losing ALL of a convention bounce and continued sinking throughout September until outside events and a good debate performance saved him.

Mr. Pitt et al. can claim that this was all part of the grand strategy they devised for "use" of DU but the bottom line is D_S was fiddling while Rome burns and that's enough to piss off anybody and everybody with half a brain, up to and including Carville and Kerry himself, who have both come out and said that the strategy of rising above the Swift Vet ads and trying to get your "message through the media" is asinine.

Why do I suspect that Dem_Strategist is none other than Howard Dean's old (non) buddy/webmaster? He fits the profile to a T. "The media is the enemy" and all that nonsense.

Might as well say ignorant American voters are the enemy. The media is and always has been a capitalistic enterprise. It is designed to move product. If you don't want to compete with the product they were offering (Swift Vets), trying to roll out an unrelated product like the economy in the same field (the media) while your core business (national security) is going down the tubes is stupid.

I have nothing but respect for what that guy did for Dean, but he failed to take it to the next level, he failed to distinguish between what could be done at the grassroots level and what compromises in strategy needed to be made to engage the RW media. There was a good article in US News on it -- in depth, most of it about the Dean campaign and obviously researched with the expectation Dean would win the primaries. Alot of Dems seem to thrive in the sort of hothouse milieu created by meetups and blogs and insular protest groups.

Those of you were supportive, are motivated and convinced of the necessary timing of our moves. You were right. We could not move until it was time, and the weight of our opponents attacks made them cocky and off-balance.
Those of you who were urging us to really go on offensive were right. And now that we are following your sage advice, you are motivated, and more confident that we are working together and listening to you.
So YES, perhaps you were both right. No hard feelings at all. Quite the contrary.

Much of the media are still the enemy.
Reality and perception are BOTH important.

The key is to channel the energy we have to move forward, rather than turning on each other.
How do you know this conflict in itself was not planned, to move the narrative for the lazy media dogs. Little bits of steak on the trail. Thank you for your parts in our Hegelian dialectic. We all play our roles whether we know it or not.



And I should know- for I AM Dem_Strategist!
Or Chris Heinz.
Or maybe I am you...
coocookajooo...