Why do I now own a John Edwards button?

This is so important. (4.00 / 1)

And I think it may be one reason I am hesitating to commit to a candidate.  In 2004, not having ever fully settled on a primary candidate (I wasn't going to get to vote until after it was settled anyway, so why bother?), I knew I'd spared myself some real heartbreak, and quite possibly the bitterness you describe.  And while Kerry had never been my first, second, or third choice, I at least didn't feel he'd kneecapped someone I believed in.

The primaries present such a difficult balance - we want the strongest candidate to emerge, and it's important that they be tested.  We want the candidates to be pushed to take strong stands on the issues.  But we don't want them to destroy each other, because we don't want them destroyed and also because we know too too well that the media will take any sign of discord - even among candidates who are in competition with each other and who are, for heaven's sake, supposed to be trying to define their differences and beat each other - as a sign that the Democratic party as a whole is fragmented.

So these reminders of how this has played out in recent cycles are especially valuable.

---

by: Laura Clawson @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:55:26 AM CDT

Iowa Commercial (0.00 / 0)

Actually, I remember reading about an ad which played on Iowa television in '04 wherein Dean's face was somehow melded with Bin Laden. I think that was traced to a combination of Gephardt and Kerry's campaigns.

I voted for Kerry in '04, but it was lukewarm at best. He didn't have the fire in the belly, he didn't want to win.

This time the candidates are all good. I still can't get by Hillary's vote to authorize Bush to go to war, though, and I'm surprised about the free pass she's getting on that. Still, if she wins the nomination, I could be enthusiastic about her in a way I could not be about Kerry.

I was just at one of Obama's campaign headquarters yesterday, and the workers there had nothing but good things to say about all the candidates. I haven't heard Obama putting anyone down, either.

Richardson has his good points, too. I hope whatever happens, they all have major roles in the new Democratic administration and/or Congress.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:12:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well that sent me to Google (4.00 / 1)

The so-called ties to Kerry and Gephardt were pretty tenuous, in my view.  A guy who had worked for Kerry, but left when Jim Jordan got fired, worked on the ad. (He left because his boss got fired; why would he like Kerry?) And the ties to Gephardt are even more of a stretch, basically donations. Donations to the Minority Leader! (Or maybe he was whip then.) Either way, not exactly a smoking gun.

The notion of competing campaigns collaborating on an ad against another is laughable -- too many people would know about it, the source would be highly tracable. I don't think we need to compound the smear this ad committed by directing blame where it doesn't belong.

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:34:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a different dynamic (4.00 / 3)

In 2000, you had the mostly unknown George W. Bush campaigning as a moderate, a "compassionate conservative", a "uniter not a divider", etc. against the Vice-President after 8 years of Democratic control of the White House. If as a Democrat you were a little bit dissatisfied with the Clinton administration after 8 years and were a Bradley supporter, I could see being a Bradley supporter and supporting Gore "holding your nose", as you put it.

Both Bush and Gore were trying to style themselves as moderates. The results of that election have shown that the campaign theme and realities of governing are quite different. Bush is the most ideologically extreme President in recent memory and certainly no moderate and his theme of "uniter not divider" has turned into one of party over country.

A former Bradley supporter might still have voted for Gore, even if with some reluctance, but the lower level of commitment to campaigning for him was obviously a problem. I really hate to say it because this view has always seemed quite condescending and cynical, but not taking the election seriously helped Ralph Nader win a lot of protest votes that probably would've helped Gore win New Hampshire had Nader not run.

The people of New Hampshire by and large realized the mistake they made four years earlier and we cast our electoral votes for Kerry in 2004. It didn't make a difference if you were a Dean supporter or a Lieberman supporter in the primary, you knocked on doors for Kerry in the general.

In that regard, I expect 2008 to be a lot more like 2004 than 2000. The circumstances today are completely the opposite of 2000. We've lived a little less than 8 years under a Republican President who has really done a lot of damage to our country. The Republican Presidential candidates may try to "distance" themselves from Bush (as the media puts it), but none of them want to distance themselves from his ideologically extreme positions (except maybe Ron Paul, who's just as extreme, but with a different ideology). They're all trying to win George Bush supporters in the primary. A Republican administration will undoubtedly include, if you'll permit me to use Don Rumsfeld's word, "dead-enders" from the Bush administration.

We can't afford another four years of Republicans in the White House. That fundamental truth will do as much to motivate supporters of any primary candidate to work hard to elect the nominee, regardless of who it is, as anything else.

We can't risk having another President who doesn't believe in the Constitution, our civil liberties, or basic science.

People thought they could be complacent in 2000. We know better now.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:44:36 AM CDT

Wow! (4.00 / 1)

So well said, thanks for bringing it back home. 

Ditto for me; It's so refreshing NOT to be picking a candidate who is the lesser of two (or 3+) evils.

I've always paid attention and saw as many candidates as I could, but I feel something so different this time.  Getting more involved doesn't seem like a choice anymore!

Paula
http://www.frontrows...

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:20:30 AM CDT

While I slightly less than vertical (4.00 / 2)

at the moment, leaning, like you, to Edwards, I really don't want to see Democrats bashing each other either!  That worried me about Obama early on, I saw what appeared to be a tendency to portray other Democrats as out of the mainstream.  It has made me very suspicious, and when I get a call from his campaign, (and I get a fair number of calls from campaigns because I am a town chair, I guess) I tell them my concerns. 
I have been burned too many times over the years, being now almost to Medicare, not to worry that somehow we will eat each other alive and end up with some completely insane person, like Rudy or John McCain, as president!  They all sound pretty insane to me, and I don't think the Republicans are going to get any better as the primary goes on.  Their conventional wisdom is they have to please the base.  I am not sure what their base really cares about, "values" or warmongering, but I don't like either of those at all! 
I will organize my town, it is what I do best, so I will do that this summer and fall, I hope we will raise some money, and get a list of reliable people to get out the vote in Nov. 2008. 

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

---

by: bloomingpol @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:58:54 AM CDT

I own a Clinton bumper sticker. (4.00 / 1)

And one from Chris Dodd, and a Bill Richardson button.

I'm collecting something from every candidate I see. 
I haven't decided on which candidate I support, and I do appreciate the calls for unity in this thread.  When I decide on who I'll support, I'll be ready.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:21:14 AM CDT

What a good idea! (0.00 / 0)

NHcollegedem, I like your idea of sending out positive vibes to a bunch of good candidates.

"Making trouble today for a better tomorrow" http://BetsyDevine.com/blog

---

by: Betsy Devine @ Fri May 18, 2007 at 13:51:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aren't little sisters great! (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for the post and the sentiment. I became active in 2004 because I was so deeply dismayed with the Bush administration and the general direction of the country.  I am not much of a joiner so the whole "party politics" game is very distasteful to me.  I hate the feeling I get that there is some big underground game going on that is working to give Hillary the nomination in NH.  I think we turned blue last time because we have so much activity on the grass roots level and hope the it continues through this primary because the more people involved the stronger our society.  When things get nasty or the "insiders" become too important it chills participation.

standing on the sidelines looking for a reason to enter the fray.

---

by: smucci @ Sat May 19, 2007 at 09:56:39 AM CDT

Another reason to play nice with others: (0.00 / 0)

Another thought: I do think that the good will is not only a nice thing, but a necessary thing.  Many of the out of town staffers who have descended upon us know each other from campaigns past and they know they could be on the same team again someday.  Your opponent today could be your boss tomorrow...

The natives, of course, all know each other (or know of each other) & will have to work together after it's all over. 

Attend a few "town hall meetings" and you'll start seeing the same people.  It's amazing to me how small this world really is...

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:49:06 AM CDT