Please spare us the "The Republicans will pick on Candidate X, so don't nominate them!" posts!

[beaconess]

1. Why should we pick a candidate that Republicans WON'T pick on? Lieberman is probably available, but I doubt that he can get the Democratic nomination.

2. Other than Lieberman, ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE will be subjected to the most vicious possible attacks by Republicans. That's what they DO!

3. Unless we can resurrect Jesus Christ and run Him as our candidate, there is not a single person who would NOT be subjected to the worst the Republicans can throw. Everyone has something in their record, their past, or their family that is fodder for attacks.

4. If they can Swiftboat John Kerry's war record, no one is immune from it.

5. Bottom line - don't pick a nominee based on fear about what the Republicans will do to them. Pick the nominee that you think has the best policies, platform, and ability to govern and, yes, campaign skills. And then stand with them and work like hell to counter the Republican attacks, educate the voters, and GET OUT THE VOTE.

6. There are more of us than there are of them. And if we all do our part, the Republican attacks will not amount to squat.

So PLEASE, stop with the "Rove will bring up Obama's drug use," and "Hillary has too many skeletons in her closet," and "Edwards has a big ole house," and "Biden doesn't put down the toilet seat," and "Richardson chews funny" excuses for not voting for a candidate. Every one of the Democrats running in this race can beat every one of the Republicans running - if everyone stops buying into the br'er rabbit bullshit that the Republicans want us to buys into.

[maddiejoan]

1. The Republicans would attack Jesus

-- he's way to far to the left, never married, only has experience as a carpenter and he hung out with a prostitute. Plus he's never taken a stand against same-sex marriage or abortion, and he'd wanna help all the illegal immigrants.

[beaconess]

2. You're absolutely right!

We must be sure not to nominate Him either.

[tekisui]

3. That meme needs to be put to bed.

Fuck the pukes. I don't care who they are scared of, who they think of or who they want to face. As far as I'm concerned they have forfeited their credibility in choosing candidates.

Don't be scared of them. Don't appease them.

[emilyg]

4. Kick

[frogmarch]

5. K&R You hit the nail on the head. Great post! nt

[comradebillyboy]

6. very good post

even if the nominee has no flaws the pukes will make some up. but the dems need to be a lot more aggressive in pointing out the pukes real flaws, if not outright crimes.

I'd sure like to see the dem majority in congress draw more clear distinctions and not just wait for the pukes to self destruct. I think the voting public would prefer a strong and decisive idiot to a smart and competent wishsy washy inoffensive milquetoast.

[frazzled]

7. And also the "they must be really scared of my guy/gal" posts

Whether in reference to other Democrats, the Republicans, or the MSM.

This is the corollary to the OP's thesis. These types of posts are getting ridiculous. They must be scared because they're ignoring them; they must be scared because they're attacking them; they must be scared because I have no other explanations left ...

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

8. Didn't Kerry aid his Swiftboating...

by going on an extended ski trip during the middle of it, and refusing to defend himself until the damage was done? That smear wasn't true, all he had to do is fight back to stop it dead in it's tracks. Kerry's Swiftboating isn't analogous to a candidate being vulnerable to smears that are based in truth, which would be much more difficult to contain.

[beaconess]

10. It wouldn't have matter if Kerry had defended himself

People have beat up on Kerry mercilessly for not going after the Swiftboaters. But we forget to consider what would have happened had he done so:

I can hear it now:

TIM RUSSERT/CHRIS MATTHEWS/HOWARD FINEMAN, ETC.: "John Kerry was in good shape until the then unheard of group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made some bizarre allegations against him. Had he risen above it and simply ignored them, it would have been nothing more than a two-day story. But instead of ignoring them, took his eye off of the ball and jumped into the gutter with them. By doing this, he gave stature to the group and credence to their claims and brought more attention to them than would ever have been given had he just let the story die. His overblown response to their allegations is the reason that we had to keep covering it.

"Kerry proved an important point - by dignifying his enemies with a response and allowing them to get under his skin to the point of provoking a reaction from him, he is solely responsible for the damage for this story taking on a life of its own."

Kerry was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. If he went after them, he would have been blamed for perpetuating the story. If he ignored them, he would have been blamed for letting the accusations take hold. The media was going to do just what they did, no matter what Kerry did - and they would have blamed him for the damage caused by the story, no matter what.

So, no - I don't think the problem was that Kerry didn't fight back soon enough. The die was cast the second the accusations were made.

[Adelante]

13. Kerry did defend himself

The MSM decided they liked the swiftboaters' story better and went with it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I will simply say that I always think it matters how quickly and effectively we defend ourselves n/t

[rucky]

9. It's all in how you respond to the attacks.

I don't think there's any substantial dirt on any of our candidates.

[creeksneakers2]

16. I don't think there is any major dirt either

There is a misconception on DU of how the negative attacks work. There are pervasive fantasies around that the opponent (whoever that might be) will be exposed for and found guilty of something so terrible that it will destroy him in one bludgeon. Partisans devour news accounts of investigations that might end careers or get excited about stray Internet accounts of previously unknown accusations. Life isn't really like that. The big magic silver bullet almost never comes.

Candidates are destroyed by negative attacks that highlight an alleged personal flaw. Those attacks are repeated endlessly. John Kerry was called a flip flopper who wouldn't provide adequate defense. Al Gore was a serial exaggerator who said he invented the Internet. Etc, etc, etc.

Hillary has been subjected to attacks that she is scheming, manipulative, cold and crazed by lust for power for 15 years. She's survived that.

If Obama or Edwards or anybody else is the nominee, there will be a fresh attempt by the GOP to define that candidate with a few character flaws that would render the candidate unable to appropriately carry out the duties of office. The GOP will also intend to get the public to just plain dislike our nominee.

If its Edwards I'm sure they'll call him a phony. I don't know about Obama but I think they'll call him a inexperienced naive dreamer who can't protect us, especially from illegal immigrants.

[FogerRox]

11. Please KNR this reasonable post.

[Adelante]

12. It's plain old fear mongering going on here

I've had enough of it from BushCo.

The Repukes will attack ANY candidate we nominate. So the fuck what?

Let's not cower in FEAR :scared:

[suston96]

14. Good post but one point missed.......

It ain't just the Republicans that are the problem. It's the self-serving media. It always is.

This entire primary season is being orchestrated by the media and very few people realize it, to prolong a tense but news-making event.

So while we are watching out for what the Republicans might do, and we must, it is the meddling media which has planned and is executing a close but tortured primary campaign to the very end, that needs serious scrutiny.