An important perspective on Dean-v-Kerry threads...

[regnaD kciN]

I'll be up-front: I was a Dean supporter during the primary season, and wish he was the nominee. Not because Kerry was a bad choice (he isn't), but because Gov. Dean spoke to my concerns more than Kerry or any other candidate.

However, that's irrelevant. There's only one candidate who can liberate the White House from the Bush Occupation, and that's John Forbes Kerry. Each of us should be doing what we can to bring that about.

Lots of us have taken quite a blow from the post-RNC Bush "bounce." For the first time, many of us have realized that we might well lose, and that Bush might get his "mandate" that will allow him to further press his far-right agenda. And that's scary. :scared:

I've seen a lot of elections, and I'm seeing a common tendency: when the first fear of losing hits people, they insulate and distance themselves from that fear by a variant of the "sour grapes" argument -- that they really didn't back this candidate, and that some other candidate would do a better job. So, in 1972, I had to sit through a lot of grousing among senior (nominally) "McGovern" campaign staff in my state that, really, Muskie would have been a better choice. Likewise, 1984 brought a "wish we had chosen Gary Hart (or Mario Cuomo) instead of Mondale" sentiment, and 1988's fall was filled with wishes for Gore or Jackson instead of Dukakis. "Blame-the-nominee" is an old technique to avoid being associated with a loser. And it does no good. The only way to get Bush out of office is by giving our all for Kerry, not wishing we could nominate someone else.

By the same token, this "wishful thinking" approach generates a second, dangerous tendency to split loyalists versus second-guessers. We've seen that happen here, where all of a sudden old wounds become opened in last winter's Dean and Kerry camps, and the nominee's loyalists start spending lots of energy "smaking down" the second-guessers and their former favorite, energy that could be put to better use convincing voters to go with Kerry instead of Bush.

There's nothing that the Republicans would like more than to have DUers and the like lose focus on the race ahead and spend their time tearing each other apart over which of the primary candidates might have been a better choice -- preferably, if the animosity generated in those feuds prevents us from working together effectively to re-defeat Bush. Please, don't give them the satisfaction!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Thanks for posting

[madfloridian]

2. I have tried to make peace, and I have lost friends because of it.

I am not going to try anymore after the names we as supporters, and Dean as the candidate have been called tonight.

He has worked too hard, and we are still working too hard to be called names.

I have tried, trust me. I don't bash Kerry, and I will not tolerate the attacks on us.

I have tried the pleas before. No one remembers that I tried, I get gone after as well.

I am tired.

[fujiyama]

3. Rove would be

havin a field day if he saw all these Kerry -Dean, intercine warfare threads and posts.

Refighting the primaries during the general election is NOT a good idea.

The way I see it, is constructive criticism is always a good idea, but second guessing the nominee is just plain stupid.

[madfloridian]

4. And take a look at who posts a lot of threads about Dean as nominee.

Go back and check it out. I have my doubts about some, and I would hate to think it would be done on purpose.

[Julien Sorel]

5. Unfortunately, the

"Dean would have been better" threads and attitude put people in a similar position as the smears on Kerry put that campaign. If you ignore them, you risk their taking on a life of their own. This is much more likely to happen on a message board, which is a relatively direct medium, than in the real world, where most news gets filtered through the media. So it seems to me it's necessary to "lay the smack down" here in order to choke that garbage off.

I was here when Dean supporters were flooding the message board day after day after day with the same shit about other candidates, primarily Clark, and no amount of ignoring them made it go away. The same threads would be started literally every hour, and the same people would flock to them adding the same garbage. They finally instituted rules forbidding the reposting of the same stuff, but it took them several weeks. In the meantime, a lot of us learned that the way to cut down on the garbage was to give it back. Here, you have a similar dynamic with the "Kerry is blowing it" threads, most of them started and nurtured, (coincidentally, I'm sure), by former Dean supporters. If you ignore them, they will keep at it and at it and at it.

The solution, of course, is for the moderators here to act as the media are supposed to and filter out the nonsense. If that isn't done, and it generally has not been, this sort of thing is going to continue.

[madfloridian]

6. And the "this thread needs some loving"

stuff. That was not Dean folks. You do not like us, we do not really care. But let's all take the fair share, shall we?

The influx here last here was not an accident.

I will never start an ugly thread, and in fact I have tried to be reasonable. Now I won't.

It is non-productive, but then so is calling us losers and other names. But it continues as well, doesn't it.

[NashVegas]

7. It's So Easy for Dean Fans to Slap Kerry Right Now

Because Dean's not the one getting all the heat from Rove's office. I watched Bill Maher's show Friday night and saw how the crowd responded to Dean, they were eating right out of his hand.

And it's easy to do that right now.

Among the interesting things he said Friday night was the line about how (paraphrasing) we can't have an administration full of chicken hawks. I'm sure every Dean backer can well recall the night he appeared on Hardball and this exchance took place:

MATTHEWS: When you went in to the draft board that day, were you hoping to get deferred?

DEAN: I was not looking forward to going to Vietnam.

MATTHEWS: Were you hoping to be deferred?

DEAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

Does anyone have even the slightest doubt that if Howard Dean were the nominee, Rove or his minions would have used that exchange relentlessly in an ad campaign? Can there be any doubt?

His honesty in that moment could well be appreciated by people who respect such admissions. In case you haven't noticed, presidential campaigns stopped attempting to appeal to our more honorable traits eons ago.

The gods may bless Howard Dean for attempting to appeal to our nobility, but the American electorate won't, it's too busy howling under the instability of our changing world. The general populace has had enough of surprises, for right now, it wants predictable. It can cheer on Howard for his ability to surprise and delight us, but that doesn't mean it would put him in the drivers' seat.

Much better to have Howard Dean working on the sidelines, where he can promote Kerry, and blow spitballs at Bush, unfettered by attacks from the machine.

[WI_DEM]

8. I agree that Rove would have used that exchange

but 1) The American people would have understood and appreciated his honesty--most people didn't want to go to Vietnam. 2) When Rove attacks him he would have responded probably with something like this: "I admit it, I was happy I got the medical deferment. I'm sure Dick Cheney is happy he got his five deferments which kept him out of Nam. I'm sure that George W. Bush is pleased he came from a well connected family which could use its influence to get him a place in the Texas National Guard so that he could spend the war campaigning for republicans in Alabama."

Dean would have fought back and given as good as he got. Now that said, Kerry is the nominee and he deserves our backing. If he loses there will be plenty of finger pointing after the election. Right now we have a lot of work to do. I'm confident Kerry will win.