Help needed at dailykos

(we just aren't allowed to point out DU threads, right?)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/26/212354/37

what a friggin' ^%$@#$@%&*( !!

I cant stand that much negativity. The only upside here is that I know that their negativity is linked to the fact that Kerry made this proposal that they wanted to see from their darling.

disappoint. He attracts a bunch of egotistical,self-important,blowhards. They think they can dictate to the party what it should do, how it should do it and with whom. They gave a little time and a little money and they think that gives them a chunk of the party. Bull-shit revolutionary wanna be's. For them it is all about the win, they think a loud mouthed so and so, in someones face is going to get them what they want. All they need to do is take a good look back into the sixties.The anti-war movement was thought of as a fringe group, not civil enough to lead this country. We ran McGovern an anti-war candidate and with the backdrop of the democratic convention and the riots and protests outside, the majority of the country looked for security and calm, they looked towards Nixon. I am so afraid these people are going to lead us into another disaster and another Republican Presidency. At the very least there is a good possibility they are going to be responsible for splintering this party in 2008. They aren't going to be satisfied with a DLC candidate and they resent Kerry, because he has more guts then they ever will,they are going to support and try to run and bad unelectable candidate.

These are the times I wished I was able to post on that obnoxious site,but I sign up and never utilize it, so my pass expires. Normally, I consider Kos and his regular posters to be an ugly uniformed mob of know it alls.

That is why I even go over there - there are some folks who post "technical" diaries like on the environment, or the details behind various political intrigues, and sometimes the research is quite stellar.

Unfortunately though there is a lot of chaff. And kos' attitude towards Kerry is terrible, and really keeps me from liking the site more generally.

out. It is just a shame, that it has such a nasty unprogressive, unacepting attitude about it. Some of those posting against Kerry's speech and his interview are just ugly human beings.They offer no real incite as to why they hate the speech, the interview and him. They just don't want to see him do anything right. I suppose it makes they're candidate look bad to have Kerry taking the lead.

after his endorsement of Brown rather than Hackett. This may be the first time I sympathize with kos (not an endorsement of Brown, just interesting that he is getting some of his own medecine).

http://littleclarkie.blogspot.com/

Kos wants to swim with the big boys, and still act like his a small fish anyway. Well, all I can say is that if he wants to act the way he's acting and associate with people who are working for the Brown campaign and then endorse Brown instead of staying neutral the way he should have, then he gets what he gets.

He clearly was in the Dean camp, endorsed Dean and was paid by Dean.

angle.

I don't think Kos understands that the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as the real thing. He can't have it both ways.

Actually, this is more the inverse that is happening here.

The same people who think themselves as the netroots (that he thinks he created himself, I think) have decided that Hackett was the only one possible and are thrashing anybody who does not subscribe with this idea. (as I said, kos is tasting his own medecine here - Ironically, Brown is the establishment and Hackett the insurgent).

For some reason, not sure which, kos decided that Brown was a better choice and is supporting Brown. Since then, he has been attacked again and again by people who say they are Hackett's supporters.

It is just sad that people cant understand that there can be two good candidates for one seat and that a clean primary is not necessarily bad.

is working for the Brown campaign. After endorsing Hackett for the Ohio congressional seat, folks expected him to endorse Hackett for the Senate. But he has endorsed Brown and is running Brown ads.

cannot accept other disagree with them. It is typical of the net, where somebody is a heroe one day and a villain the next, simply because you agree or disagree with him.

Everybody is running Brown's ad. In fact this is an ad for the GE in Ohio, with both faces on it. I know some think there is something on the way the faces are presented, but I think there is little there.

I like Hackett, but I am extremely wary about people who think they have found God each time they hear somebody attack Bush loudly, and forget to look at what the person stands for, or of people who think that because you are new, you are definitively better than ANYBODY that was already in the system.

Ohio has the chance to have two good candidates for the Democratic nomination. Let them run an honest campaign and let's see who will win. Let's them compare their positions on issues for example. But the netroots have to stop thinking they represent the totality of the Democratic Party or that the guy who speaks the toughest is the best qualified for the job.

Amazingly, I have come to agree on this one with the two people I dislike the most on the blogs: kos and Amstrong, though I think they are responsible for their situation because they created exactly the same environment when it came to support Dean (the insurgent) against Kerry (the establishment).

on Franken's show today?

I'm still of two minds about him. He sounds more like a rep to me than a senator. Not polished at all, and very very aggressive. Maybe that's what people are in the mood for these days. If it was my choice I'm not sure I'd want him as my senator.

I know that I prefer Brown's positions on issues, but he is clearly as progressive as Kucinich and who knows whether he can win in a statewide race in his state.

The same thing applies to Hackett who has never run any race against an incumbent and is new in politics.

So I dont think qualified to support one or the other (I dont think Hackett would do good in MA, but who knows).

Ooops, sorry - was that too elitist?? </sarcasm>


I went over to help - but those people can't be argued with. The latest way to slim Kerry, by the way, (just heard Ed Schultz say it too on my way home) is "I think John Kerry is a great guy, but..." In Schultz's case he used it to point out how much tougher Hillary is than JK.

Holy friggin crap. Sometimes the shit's so deep you just have to walk around it. I admire your grit, and you made some wonderful arguments - as usual. Too bad they were falling on totally deaf ears.

That is so far wrong that it will be obvious bullshit when 2008 rolls around. If all Hillary has on Kerry (in people's minds) by 2008 is that she is "tougher" - look out Hil, you will be dead meat.

That's my thinking anyway.

That thread was totally insane. It really pissed me off, after hearing how great JK was in all his appearances, and they post that crap. Some of those people over there are clearly disconnected from reality - they wouldn't know a decent politician even if he was their presidential nominee. Oh...that's right... :grr:

This person is making up things out of whole cloth. She should be a fiction writer. I mean, my GOD, she's not even giving reality a glance!

I asked this person why he was complaining about getting Kerry's emails, since he was referring to them as "never-ending" and included a poll that asked if folks had gotten the email which included "Yes" "No" and "My spam filter caught it".

I asked him why he didn't just unsubscribe. Was it because he liked getting the emails so he could bitch about Kerry each time he got one? He made it pretty clear in his diary that he didn't believe much of what Kerry said, and really didn't support him.

He accused me of projecting, and insisted he never said any such thing. He didn't have a problem with the emails and he didn't call them spam.

Riight. If you're going to snark, then own up to it I say.

they don't care about the issues. they dont' care about getting troops out of Iraq as much as wanting to debate on words.