Guys, we need to talk

I looked into GDP, and I feel like (and not to worry, I'm talking about myself, too) we've become instigators of trouble, and this is not in the best interest of the setadeadline campaign. Now I don't care for Hillary, and have no plans of voting for her in the primaries, but we apparently are all being associated with being pro-Kerry/anti-Clinton. Isn't this kind of what happened when Dean lost the primaries and the Deaniacs despised Kerry, never letting it go? Now mind you, Hillary's reaction to the "joke" is the main verifiable catalyst to most of us detesting the woman, whereas Kerry never betrayed Dean like that. There's also the "history" of the Clinton administration not taking Kerry's investigations to the next level, and that's real, too. Still, the results of the resentment, even if ours is more justified than the Deaniacs' was, are the same. There's nothing wrong with feeling this way, but it worries me that this will interfere with the important new campaign of Senator Kerry's which is to end the war in Iraq, with the first step being his Iraq plan and getting lots of people to co-sponsor it on setadeadline.com.

It's one thing to discuss the issues like Hillary's new Iraq plan, but quite another when we go OUT THERE with posts that only attract the trolls and make ourselves look like we're bent on hating Hillary and not much else. Of course, that's not the truth, but I'm seeing more and more posters interpreting it that way.

I hope I'm not annoying people with this, but it really looks bad OUT THERE and I want Kerry to get a lot of support on DU for his campaign to end the war.

(Edited slightly to make more sense)

I try not to get involved with any threads that are bashing a fellow Dem. (even Hillary) But the Hillary-bots are out there goading us, trying to get us into the fight by bashing Kerry. Are we not supposed to defend him?

in those threads. That's what the ignore button is for. Nobody will read them, if they're not kicked up.

I think we often fall into the trap of those who wish to provoke us, and it gives DU a negative opinion of our core group of Kerry supporters as well as these people who provoke us. And Senator Kerry needs us here on DU leading the charge, and getting out his message of ending this war and Set A Deadline.

We must ignore those who wish to provoke, and push forward with our agenda. And the anti-Clinton thing really annoys me, because I don't believe we ALL are anti-Clinton. I'm not anti-Clinton!! Even then, we get that label from others.

We are (in a way) representatives of Sen. Kerry and we should conduct ourselves accordingly. Sen. Kerry is no longer a presidential contender, but he is still doing VERY important work which should (by nature) garner great support here on DU. That will never happen however if we (individually or as a group) piss people off just for the sport of it. Don't mean to be harsh, that's just the way I see it.

Honestly, I don't see any negative threads started by Kerry supporters against the Clinton's.
I take responsibility for one back in October, but I actually apologized to the offended party.

after all who am I to say what another person's intentions are. I don't mean anything that was said by anyone in October btw. Never mind.

With setadeadline.com live and This Moment on Earth on its way, I think we're doing a big disservice to JK and all of his amazing work if we don't kind of watch what we're putting out into the universe.

I try to avoid Hillary threads as much as possible if I have nothing good to say.

I'll bet you can guess who the first members of that gang are. ;)

down! Look forward to happier days on DU. :)

and they initiate posts themselves. I don't see us pointing out some inconsistencies in comments or on issues constitutes bashing.
I am not going to pretend to like someone when I have major issues with them. Especially when I feel they are bad for our party. Honestly,I have already had my say as far as the Clinton's are concerned and avoid initiating threads concerning them at all.
Can you point out what hostile threads against Hillary and the Clinton's have been posted recently by us?
I was guilty of one back in October,but I was expressing my point of view, and if people can't distinguish us as individuals then that is their problem.
I don't see this as being a major issue for support of set a deadline.
The two most offended by the Kerry group wouldn't sign on anyway.

threads started by us, threads started by someone else who doesn't like clinton, all kinds of threads. And over and over again, bitter wars erupt. And, I am owning up to at least 3 posts I did today. And I also noticed OTHER posters saying this about us, not the usual suspects. Anyway, feel free to disagree. Maybe the whole point of this exercise is to say, I'm not participating in it anymore, and hope I can persuade others to do the same. But as LevensonK says downthread, we're all individuals so there will probably be no consensus.

Strange, I know.

The anti-surge resolution is an empty political statement, that much is clear. As much as it pains me to say it, though, Kerry's bill is as well. I have no idea what he intends to accomplish with it, since (let's be honest with ourselves) this war will continue into the next president's term, he can't use the bill to boost a campaign profile, and he's guaranteed re-election. I rather suspect it's a salve for his conscience.

Yes, that's pessimistic. That's how I really feel about it, though. I doubt that what happens on DU will have much to do with the success of his effort.

raise the profile of setting a deadline with the public, to encourage voters who will in turn pressure their Congress-critters.

May be the war will continue until the next president, may be enough people in the country will leverage so that something happens (through one plan or another). But people need to speak out. Staying silent is not an option.

For the rest, you may be right.

Heck, look at the Iraq Study Group, and tell me that Kerry's ideas haven't already changed how people think about what is to be done about Iraq. Even in your worst case scenario, his ideas will affect the next president, even if they don't give him the credit. Best case scenario, more and more members of Congress move in his direction. You've got to start somewhere, and I think that Kerry's campaign right now means something and will change history, even if it doesn't look that way right now.

I haven't signed the pledge and do not plan on it. It's taking this man's time and energy away from things that he can do something about immediately as, oh, Small Business Committee chairman and Science and Technology Subcommittee chairman... things like big industry's pillaging of a certain part of our own country.

Bush is in charge of this war, he has been from the start when he invaded in violation of the law (IWR), and he will continue no matter how many people object to it -- or who they are.

Let's all just drop this line of discussion. We differ on it. I don't want to have a fight. I probably shouldn't even have entered the thread. Carry on.

:grouphug:

It is part of his job on the SRFC. I can see your point about where he spends his time and energy. Even with great staff, he can't do everything and he is good at many things.

I assume that he is at least as serious on global warming and the environment - and I saw the respect given him by both Boxer and Innoyhe in the two committees dealing with this.

He and Snowe were very strong last year on the SBC and from his comments then I would assume he will work on that now that they control the Congress. I assume that going after big industry will be as hard as getting Bush to change his Iraq policy. When did anyone win against them since Eisenhower warned about them.

Taking the lead on the 3 biggest problems of the day - as a Senator - is a daunting task.

Stopping a war is not a typical Senate task. I applaud him for trying to be innovative about something he clearly feels strongly about.

that he can stop the war by himself, he also knows that he can influence public opinion and other democratic leaders on that. This is what he has been doing for the last 4 years. In addition, this falls totally in his domain of competency (foreign affairs) and his role as chairman of the SFRC SubCommittee that supervises the Middle East.

Both because of his past in VietNam and because of this, I somehow doubt that he will stop fighting on this one. I do not see why he would stay silent and am not even sure why this would bother somebody.

It is the one issue that I can begin a converation about with anyone. It is a huge topic of conversation in the Senator's home state and people have an expectation that he will deal with it. Part of the reason that Sen. Kerry was elected was to deal with some of the foreign policy issues that are facing this country. The fact that he deals with it so intelligently and in such a thoughtful manner impresses the voters back home. This is not nothing in a re-election cycle.

Last year, Ted Kennedy ran a campaign. It was a foregone conclusion that Sen. Kennedy would win re-election, the only thing in doubt was the actual numbers. However, the Senator had visibilities in the state and made sure that he showed up all over the place and had surrogates to talk to people and ask for their votes. The topic of Iraq came up a lot. It will also come up a lot when Sen. Kerry starts to really ramp up his re-election bid. I know that on the outside it looks like all he has to do is announce for re-election, but that is not true. It has never been true. You never, never, never take the votes for granted. That is a bad and dumb thing to do.

I also want Sen. Kerry to deal with the other issues that are pressing in this nation. I also want him to deal with issues as they relate to Massachusetts. He needs to talk about that Export Products, Not Jobs bill. That is wonderful nationally and at home. He needs to deal with the environment because that is also a strong issue at home and in the country. (And social security and health care. Oh, and those committee assignments that are also good for the people in his home state. Ahm, federalism means that you do things nationally and you also take care of the folks at home. It's a split and a very different focus than a person has when running for President.)

He also needs to deal with Iraq. That is part of his job. He is wonderfully qualified to explain to his constituents what is going on over there and why their sons and daughters are experiencing hardships in deployments and so forth. That matters to people who vote here. It is not nothing and it is not a waste of time. That is part of his job as Senator from Massachusetts, IMHO. He should also work with other Senators and Reps to assist them in problems in their parts of the country. That is also part of being a good Senator, I agree. But, ahm, he still has to run in Massachusetts and address the issues that people in this state are talking about. That includes Iraq.

I think it is more than salve for his conscience. I seriously doubt that he thinks there was any way he could have stopped the war from happenning. The only way he could have ended it was to win in 2004 - which he did everything in his power to do.

I do think that his bill will do what his 2005 and 2006 plans did, incrementally moved where some people were. At minimum people completely unconnected to war are saying that the Americans should not be doing the type of missions they are being asked to do. Bush is really the only one who can make a difference. The only way he will shift to a Kerry-like plan is if he sees becomes convinced it is in his interest.

Still, it would be worse if Kerry in his position were not speaking out and recommending the best plan he could. Whether Bush takes it or not, to do otherwise would be not doing his job. Not to mention, as one of the experts in that area, he is producing something that may be taken in some altered form by someone else to run on. I would prefer him running - but he clearly gave up that dream.

Those of us who truly have JK's best interests at heart and want to support his efforts with setadeadlin.com and the upcoming book, should cool it in regards to getting tangled up in flame wars.
These threads are not even about defending Kerry and rebutting falsehoods, because how can you rebut personal attacks and deliberate slurs of a group of supporters?
Let's all just step back and examine what we are trying to accomplish versus what we are actually accomplishing. Some approaches don't work and make us look bad in the process.
That said; we are all individuals and have our own opinions. Trying to come to a general consensus is not going to be easy.
The best thing to do is put our egos second only to what we are trying to achieve.
Also - a word of caution; our forum is not private and can be, and IS read by others on DU.

I've said for years that the Clintons were causing divides in the party and had political beliefs that didn't benefit me or anybody I know. In fact, the biggest obstacle to ending the war IS TeamClinton. Ending their influence in the Democratic Party would be almost as big a victory as awakening people to the failings of Republicanism. OTOH, I also don't comment in very many Kerry threads so the rest of you won't have to be too closely associated with the riffraff. :eyes:

He won, after all, and there is considerable mystique about the war room and svengali-like charm that doesn't work on me. Democrats trust his leadership, and I don't know where he is leading. My problem with Hillary is that super addicition to Bill comes with her, as well as the duplicitous team of Ickes, Carville, and remembering how much Rahm Emanuel applauded Kerry and Dean in their mid-term efforts in his victory.

My disaffection goes beyond their lackluster support for Kerry, and signaling others to stand down, but thinking America is his personal playground to forever manipulate, oh, I mean lead, and not in an up front way with results I see as an improvement.

Like my misguided hubby, who says any Dem is better, and doesn't mind Bill, saying he was elected. Just the reasoning I don't buy.

....I heard on Tucker on MSNBC, a certain someone is accusing me of having a mental illness. I was about to reply, when I realized they wanted me too. They wanted me to take the bait, and I'm learning now not to take the bait.

I believe this can make our mission more productive, and honestly if we don't reply to their posts provoking us they'll eventually give up their obsession and move on. It's time to tough it out, and let them have their fun...and eventually they'll stop bullying and get off the playground.

But I don't mind reading what she has to say, I can easily stop myself from responding. If it gets much worse, I will place her on ignore. It's a waiting out process, how much salt do they have left to throw into our wounds? If we ignore them, probably not much.

Those exact words? Mentally ill or reference to meds? Alert. You do not have to put up with being spoken to that way.

I'd alert on her, and then put her on ignore. I just read through some of the more contentious threads in GDP after putting a few select people on ignore, and it was a much more pleasant (and quicker) experience. :)

narcissistic.

It happens when people are missing healthy egos.......you know....healthy egos that have a basis in reality...like mine. ;) heheh

No way would I stop talking about corruption for ANY reason, and no matter who it touched.

If that bothers certain proClinton supporters that is their problem.

and know the passion you feel on this. The biggest problem is when it is repeated too often and as a response to anything on Clinton. In context, it can be great, but sometimes it can be too much.

At this point, Hillary is not a big favorite on DU and surprisingly, given how much of a front runner she is, I still don't see a large group of people who know where she stands, who are pushing her positions. (only one of our favorite three claim her as their favorite).

I just happen to know that the SUBSTANCE of what is posted is so serious that it HURTS those who have a need to believe in the purity of their personal heros. So what? For every yoyo out there moaning about that reality there are many more who pm me that their eyes have been opened in ways they never expected. There are ALOT of lurkers on these boards. And alot more anti-corruption folk coming out on the Plame threads, too.

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

And is going into overdrive to gain a response and provoke us.

Nice job ignoring her, lets keep it up!! :)

please

Doesn't surprise me, the obsession continues...

Keep on ignoring Kerrycrats, it's working!!

we can do so here...

http://groups.google.com/group/Kerrycrats-John-Kerry-Support-Group

I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that we can't talk privately on DU and that everything we post is public. We need a private lounge we can go to and vent, chat, gossip, curse, etc.

Any psycho is free to browse here and check out what we are saying. It would be nice to keep some things away from prying eyes.

little fun: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=170794&mesg_id=170957

Okay, I'm not posting in GD and GD-P, so I don't know if I really have the right to weigh in. But here's a maybe controversial idea: Kerry isn't running for president and there is no need anymore to defend his positions and decisions from the 2004 campaign. The attacks are still mostly about that, right? (IWR vote, Swiftboats, concession blablabla etc.) I understand your urge to set the record straight but it doesn't really make much sense right now IMO. Those here who want to support Kerry in a positive way with SetADeadline shouldn't engage in arguments about presidential candidates and shouldn't answer attacks on Kerry, the candidate. That was yesterday. It's history. What Kerry is doing now was his decision. He isn't attacking other Democrats. He is hitting hard on the Bush admin and people like McCain who support the troop surge. We should do the same. What do you think?

However, some of us have other things to say about other subjects and other candidates. Now, I can see not posting just to be malicious, but I still see nothing wrong with setting the record straight for others who may not be aware of what transpired in 2004.

As for Kerry's choice, my very personal opinion is that, in some sense, he had to make this choice , because he had road blocks placed in his way that made it to difficult and risky to run. Now, as I said, this is my very personal opinion and it isn't up for debate.

I still feel a need to defend him, it is something I have been doing for three years. You just don't stop doing that suddenly. I feel I can defend him and move forward also.

Senator Kerry. I will also weigh in briefly when if I see them running up a lot of BS on others that seems contrived. It gets a little time-consuming so you have to pick your battles. I definitely think Kerry is our best contemporary major politician but i was agnostic about whether or not he should run. I saw his decision as up to him. The presidency is only one venue to advocate for an end to the Iraq disaster and real Democratic priorities.

My dislike for Senator Clinton has nothing to do with Senator Kerry. I actually like president Clinton. Honestly, I can't really put a finger on every reason why I don't like her - but I know I don't like some of the things she's done and said, how she seems to bully her opponants, and don't like her position on the war, which are the main things. I don't want her to be the candidate, because if so many Democrats dislike her, I think she'd have a tough time winning the general election. Also it's not clear to me that she'd be for pulling the troops out of Iraq. Also I don't like how the press seems to have decided for us that she's going to be the Democratic candidate. I think we still get a chance to vote, right?

Of course I also don't go out of my way to post negatives in positive posts about Senator Clinton that Clinton supporters start - not that I'm saying you guys to - I don't go into them, so I don't know who responds to what. I know I don't like it when others do that to Senator Kerry. Frankly Senator Clinton has enough people here that do not support her, I suspect there would be plenty of negative responses without us getting involved, but if you don't like a candidate, even if you are a Kerry supporter, I think you should be able to post that - without bashing people's Pro-Clinton threads. We are naturally going to like some candidate's better than others, and since Kerry is not running, I don't think we should be expected to ignore the whole presidential race and not have opinons about other candidates.

One thing I did notice, and I don't mean to criticize but thought I'd throw it out there, just looking through the group, looking at the greatest page trying to look from the perspective of a non Kerry supporter, is that often there tend to be two or three or four threads about the exact same press converence, or statement, or whatever Senator Kerry made. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to try to consolidate our thoughts in just one post about every big thing Senator Kerry says rather than having 4 or 5 nearly the same posts. I wonder if people don't say, "another Kerry thread" with so many duplicates and ignore it? Just throwing that out there - feel free to do as you wish here. Maybe more posts about the same thing get it noticed more, but I could see where it could annoy. Also, I may be more sensitive to this about Kerry and notice it more - it may happen with every other candidate as well and I just don't notice it as much.

Just my 2 cents. I agree with the people that say the use of ignore is a good thing for the constant Kerry instigators. If you don't reply to them maybe they'll give up. Also you'll probably feel alot happier.

There was something else I was going to post that I thought would help, but unfortunately it has fled my mind. May edit post if it comes back to me.

Editing:
See I always remember things after I have already posted. I think it's a good idea to support everyone's anti war resolutions, not just Senator Kerry's. I think the more anti-war resolutions, the more likely we are to get out of the war. If you don't like Senator Clinton's war stance, I think it's our duty to try and change her mind, as well as all other senators and congresspeople who do not want the troops out, and aren't willing to stand up to the Republicans, if that's how you feel. How about directing your energy, instead of a negative post towards a candidate, actually email a candidate if you don't care for something they've said, or a position they hold. Try to bring them over to your side on an issue instead. When I didn't like my senator, Senator McCaskill's response to the joke, I emailed her, telling her that, and the next time I heard her on the subject, she said, so he botched a joke, that's better than botching a war. They are there to represent us, esp. if they are running for president, so tell them how you feel about their positions if you don't like them. Also, if Obama's plan looks alot like Kerry's I say good - that means that he's also against the war. Imitation is the strongest form of flattery you know. If it isn't strong enough for you - tell him so.

Meg

offline. People hear her name and go ballistic. She generates a lot of animosity and not just from conservatives. It seems that the one thing people are bipartisan about lately is dislike of Hillary Clinton.

Personally, I've never cared for her enough to dislike her. She just never inspired me one way or the other, until that comment about Kerry owing the troops an apology. That showed me that she's someone not to be trusted. Call me silly, but I think trustworthiness is important in a president.

At my work, I come into contact with people of all persuasions and backgrounds every day. Often casual chat turns to politics and there are two things that are consistent:

1. Everyone wants us out of Iraq
2. Nobody wants Hillary Clinton in the White House

I haven't heard one person, not one single person, say anything positive about Hillary Clinton. In all honesty, I've got both positive and luke-warm reactions to Kerry. People either like him or they don't much care. But Hillary generates extreme negativity.

Nobody here can match the Hillary-hate from your average person on the street, at least the ones I've encountered. In many cases, they don't even know WHY they hate her, just that they don't like her and won't vote for her. You would think there would be some support for her on the basis that she is the first woman with a decent chance of getting nominated.

I've wondered about the attacks on the Kerrycrats. It's not just about Kerry. In fact, it really has little to do with him now that he's out of the race. The attacks are bait. So you have to ask yourself why are there people here intent on baiting Kerry supporters. It's not recreational, that's for certain. There has to be a gain in it for them and that is what really should be considered. What is the gain?

I've got some suspicions but I'm not going to post them here.

The bottom line is that I've got very little interest in debating people who are simply posting just to bait us. They have an agenda and I'm not going to help them achieve it. Instead, I'll post in response to other Kerrycrats, but not the instigators directly. This makes more sense. They aren't worth the effort and they love the attention.