Clinton's advice to the Dem Candidates.

[CADsortaGUY]

Clinton warns candidates against 'too liberal' stance

<snip>
"We can't win if people think we're too liberal. But we can't get our own folks out if people think we have no convictions. So the trick is to get them both,"
...
"But I don't believe that either side should be saying, 'I'm a real Democrat and the other one's not,' or, 'I'm a winning Democrat and the other one's not,' "
...
"The more the public believes the Democrats can be trusted with the national security of America, to protect and defend the country against terror and weapons of mass destruction, the more free they are emotionally to think about the other issues.
"Therefore, I think it is highly counterproductive to spend a great deal of time trying to identify the wings of the party and [having] each wing criticize the other,"
</snip>

Wow, good words of advise IMO.
Although it does appear that he is hinting some stuff(democratic wing) at Dean, he seems to be talking to them all.

CkG

 

[XZeroII]

Cliff Notes: Tell the people whatever they want to hear at the time. Make people think with their emotions rather than their heads.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Cliff Notes: Tell the people whatever they want to hear at the time. Make people think with their emotions rather than their heads.

Just like Bush

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Cliff Notes: Tell the people whatever they want to hear at the time. Make people think with their emotions rather than their heads.

Just like Bush

What ever do you mean? I don't see us having anything to do with nation building!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

"I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our -- when it's in our best interests." - G.W.Bush October 11, 2000

Now back from the diversion to the Topic.
Clinton is a very powerfull and strong figure within the Democrats party. I think his advise should be heeded...but then again I hope it is not as I think Bush can do a better job than any of the contenders at this point.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ] as I think Bush can do a better job than any of the contenders at this point.

CkG

That's the same emotional deception that leads people to buy lottery tickets. They hope for great things even though objectively, it's never happened before and the odds are millions to one.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our -- when it's in our best interests." - G.W.Bush October 11, 2000

Now back from the diversion to the Topic.
Clinton is a very powerfull and strong figure within the Democrats party. I think his advise should be heeded...but then again I hope it is not as I think Bush can do a better job than any of the contenders at this point.

CkG

How do you know for sure, Cad? I mean without seeing any of the democratic contenders in action. Back in 2000, I thought Bush would do a piss-poor job upon taking office based upon his extreme inexperience and general dopiness, however he's done even worse than I ever possibly imagined. See? Bush is the master of underestimation.

Anyway, back OT: I think you're right about Clinton. He makes a good point and he really won the presidency back in the day based on his middle-of-the-roadness. I'm torn on the defense issue - I admire Dean the most for voting his conscience, however deep down I'm afraid somehow the American people will misunderstand that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ] as I think Bush can do a better job than any of the contenders at this point.

CkG

That's the same emotional deception that leads people to buy lottery tickets. They hope for great things even though objectively, it's never happened before and the odds are millions to one.

I didn't say "hope" - I said think. There are many reasons to back why I think that because I've put each of them up against Bush on the issues I feel are important. Bush wins every time.
It's not blind "hope" or "wishing" as you seem to suggest, but rather a good solid look at the issues.

Now one might surmise that with all the "anyone but Bush" talk - that those who say that are the ones with "emotional deception" issues.

DM - Most of the Nine have voting records and if not - have stated policies on things. If they are men(and woman) of their word - they will do the things they promise. ofcoourse we need to temper that with some reason...since we are talking about politicians here -both sides

CkG

 

[Pers]

how could you do any worse than a murderer?



Too bad we can't initiate an illegitimate war with a random western european country as an experiment to see how stirred the white conservative's emotions would be as a result. Maybe if the war meant the loss of white lives, it would hit home a little harder. But no, you can continue to cover truth w/ facades implicating a noble cause to liberate people by essentially killing them. Yes, bush definately helped liberate something out of all of this. He liberated oil from the control of the Arabs (what we would call imperialism) at the cost of HUMAN lives. Feel proud. You're An American! Your unwavering support for bush demonstrates how you value patriotism over humanitarianism. Good for you. But for the rest of us with a conscience and a brain who refuse to be misled by Big brother - we'll look for other candidates who are better able to comprehend the significance of their decisions (ex. pushign for war w/o having a MOTHER FVCKING POST WAR PLAN?! - how does he get away with this????)

I think any candidate who opposed the war (besides Clark - because Clark is a POS who shouldn't run for president under the democratic ticket) which cost us $87 billion is a better alternative than the mob-squad we have running things now. Neo-conservatism is nice... if we were all white.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well, I just got done watching a few clips on Deantv - 2 of which are what looks to be the start of negative campaigning - Definately NOT what Clinton is advising. The 2 ads - are running in Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa's was an attack on Prescription drugs for old people and how his opponents were talking about what was said 8 years ago; and the one for N.H. was an attack on the people who voted for the Iraq war.

I wonder if the others will respond to these ads or play it cool like Clinton is suggesting.


/me grabs popcorn just incase

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

as i have said before, clinton does not want dean to take control of the DNC, or become the presidential candidate..
he is defacto lobbying for Clark (his annointed choice)
he is trying to harpoon Dean without naming him..

i have been accused of "hateful" commentary when i have said the clintons control and wish to continue to control the DNC.
well, i certainly believe that bill's latest comments (which are always self-serving) support the notion that
bill/hill are anti-dean..

Q.E.D.

 

[kylebisme]

i think you are right heartsurgeon, and that is almost all the reason i need to put my vote towards Dean.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
as i have said before, clinton does not want dean to take control of the DNC, or become the presidential candidate..
he is defacto lobbying for Clark (his annointed choice)
he is trying to harpoon Dean without naming him..

i have been accused of "hateful" commentary when i have said the clintons control and wish to continue to control the DNC.
well, i certainly believe that bill's latest comments (which are always self-serving) support the notion that
bill/hill are anti-dean..

Q.E.D.

i really hate clark - i hope this isn't true even though i suspect that it is

 

[MonstaThrilla]

It should be noted that this article was printed by the Washington Times, a paper founded by a man who thinks he's the second coming of Christ and staffed by conservatives. As an aside, I think a study recently showed that 7/10 national political pundits/commentators are conservative...

Anyways, this is old news in the party and the Democrats have gotten over this "labeling" war. They stopped it earlier in the summer. Dean stopped using that line originated by Paul Wellstone because, well, he is no Paul Wellstone. As for what Clinton thinks, I could care less and I'll reiterate again as to how interesting it is that conservatives seem to be more interested in what he says then everyone else. Whenever Clinton makes an article, we always see conservatives saying "ahhh.... there he goes again!". It usually pertains to when Clinton makes a criticism of those in his own party, such as this incident and when he said on Larry King that the Niger nuclear "scandal" should be dropped. The other time I see him in the news is when he makes one of his infamous "power grabs", like suggesting a change in Presidential term limits or suggesting that Hillary is open to running in 2004.

heartsurgeon,

Sir, please realize that Hillary isn't running in 2004. She isn't running in 2004. Senator Clinton isn't running in 2004. Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't running in 2004. The only reason I could fathom an intelligent person would still think that is to fuel his angst again her and what she stands for. Its ok to hate her. Just admit your hate is what fuels such suppositions rather any established fact.

And of course Bill makes self-serving comments. Which politician doesn't?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
It should be noted that this article was printed by the Washington Times, a paper founded by a man who thinks he's the second coming of Christ and staffed by conservatives. As an aside, I think a study recently showed that 7/10 national political pundits/commentators are conservative...

Anyways, this is old news in the party and the Democrats have gotten over this "labeling" war. They stopped it earlier in the summer. Dean stopped using that line originated by Paul Wellstone because, well, he is no Paul Wellstone. As for what Clinton thinks, I could care less and I'll reiterate again as to how interesting it is that conservatives seem to be more interested in what he says then everyone else. Whenever Clinton makes an article, we always see conservatives saying "ahhh.... there he goes again!". It usually pertains to when Clinton makes a criticism of those in his own party, such as this incident and when he said on Larry King that the Niger nuclear "scandal" should be dropped. The other time I see him in the news is when he makes one of his infamous "power grabs", like suggesting a change in Presidential term limits or suggesting that Hillary is open to running in 2004.

heartsurgeon,

Sir, please realize that Hillary isn't running in 2004. She isn't running in 2004. Senator Clinton isn't running in 2004. Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't running in 2004. The only reason I could fathom an intelligent person would still think that is to fuel his angst again her and what she stands for. Its ok to hate her. Just admit your hate is what fuels such suppositions rather any established fact.

And of course Bill makes self-serving comments. Which politician doesn't?

Actually it is from recent comments from Clinton. You can dismiss the messenger if you want - but you can't dismiss what Clinton said. Oh, and they have "gotten over it"? Haha - tell that to Dean. He's still doing it

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Actually it is from recent comments from Clinton. You can dismiss the messenger if you want - but you can't dismiss what Clinton said. Oh, and they have "gotten over it"? Haha - tell that to Dean. He's still doing it

Recent comments from Clinton on a DATED SUBJECT. Of course I can dismiss what he said, what's stopping me? Like I said, this "labeling" crap is old.

Like I said, Dean stopped using his "democratic wing" line months ago. Sorry that it stuck in people's memories, but it was a borrowed line (from a damn fine human being) that really wasn't appropriate for him to use. So he *gasp* changed course (unthinkable in a politician I know) and he doesn't use it anymore.

So go ahead and have a gas at DeanTV and how ridiculous he is for going after his competitors. They're going through a primary process if you weren't aware (you see no one is actuallly "handpicked" in this race despite popular belief). So you can sit there laughing at how pathetic the Democrats are, and how easily Bush will beat them. And how they're infighting and bickering. But its all in the name of beating Bush in the end. The goal is VERY clear and no amount of personal gratification or Clinton's hubris will change that.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Well, well, well...

I always had sneaking suspsision that the right wing only listen to what Clinton says only if it suits their agenda.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

heartsurgeon,

Sir, please realize that Hillary isn't running in 2004. She isn't running in 2004. Senator Clinton isn't running in 2004. Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't running in 2004. The only reason I could fathom an intelligent person would still think that is to fuel his angst again her and what she stands for. Its ok to hate her. Just admit your hate is what fuels such suppositions rather any established fact.

wtf?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Actually it is from recent comments from Clinton. You can dismiss the messenger if you want - but you can't dismiss what Clinton said. Oh, and they have "gotten over it"? Haha - tell that to Dean. He's still doing it

Recent comments from Clinton on a DATED SUBJECT. Of course I can dismiss what he said, what's stopping me? Like I said, this "labeling" crap is old.

Like I said, Dean stopped using his "democratic wing" line months ago. Sorry that it stuck in people's memories, but it was a borrowed line (from a damn fine human being) that really wasn't appropriate for him to use. So he *gasp* changed course (unthinkable in a politician I know) and he doesn't use it anymore.

So go ahead and have a gas at DeanTV and how ridiculous he is for going after his competitors. They're going through a primary process if you weren't aware (you see no one is actuallly "handpicked" in this race despite popular belief). So you can sit there laughing at how pathetic the Democrats are, and how easily Bush will beat them. And how they're infighting and bickering. But its all in the name of beating Bush in the end. The goal is VERY clear and no amount of personal gratification or Clinton's hubris will change that.

No, actually Dean hasn't stopped the party positioning stuff - he may have stopped using the "wing" statement but he is still is trying to paint himself as an outsider to washington's Democrats...who have only "talked" of prescription drugs for 8 years, and who voted for a Republican war....Oh yeah - he's not playing that game anymore

I guess we need to coin a new acronym - YADA - Yet Another Dean Apologist! :Q

It starts to get fun right about now - the attacks are starting since Dean has gone negative. I can't wait to see what Kerry is going to retort with.

BTW - howarddean.tv is run by Howard Dean That's what the little "Paid for By The Dean Campaign" sentence means at the bottom of the page.

Smiley - I've alway listened to what Clinton has had to say. This is one of the occasions that he is pretty much right on the money. He knows campaign politics - his supposed centrist stance is what beat Bush in '92. Which means he knows the candidates have to be careful how "liberal" they are, because voters don't buy that liberal stuff, just like Bush had to be careful how "conservative" he was in '00. Clinton knows Democrat politics - the 9 dwarves would be wise to head his advise. If they do, then Bush may have a fight on his hands, otherwise it's re-election landslide all over again in a year that ends in 4

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

So go ahead and have a gas at DeanTV and how ridiculous he is for going after his competitors. They're going through a primary process if you weren't aware (you see no one is actuallly "handpicked" in this race despite popular belief).

No, actually Dean hasn't stopped the party positioning stuff - he may have stopped using the "wing" statement but he is still is trying to paint himself as an outsider to washington's Democrats...who have only "talked" of prescription drugs for 8 years, and who voted for a Republican war....Oh yeah - he's not playing that game anymore

I guess we need to coin a new acronym - YADA - Yet Another Dean Apologist! :Q

It starts to get fun right about now - the attacks are starting since Dean has gone negative. I can't wait to see what Kerry is going to retort with.

BTW - howarddean.tv is run by Howard Dean That's what the little "Paid for By The Dean Campaign" sentence means at the bottom of the page.

I just acknowledged that he in fact "going after his competitors". I interpreted Clinton's "advice" to be against making broad empty generalizations like "I'm more of a Democrat than you", or "I'm electable and you aren't". I haven't seen that sort of attack in months. The Washington Times articles states that the DLC was attacking Dean back in May, but mentions nothing recent because there hasn't been anything recent. Looking back at it, Clinton's interview was actually conducted last month. I see clear distinction broad attacks and specific attacks on policy.

Dean's been attacked on his past positions by Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kerry for about 2 months now. Their respective camps have already been giving the media negative attack material, and those candidates have been stating the attack material during the debates. They've been doing it all throughout this most recent debate season.

But now that Dean makes commercials to attack the Washington candidates on their past records, that's when the attacks formally commence and "it starts to get fun"? TV commercials running in Iowa and New Hampshire cross the line Clinton was talking about? Are candidates not allowed to fight over the issues and past records during primary season?

 

[tnitsuj]

Liberal, Conservative...it is all BS in the end. The preisdency will in the end be a contest between two men, and it will be decided by peoples gut insticts and likes/dislikes of the personality and presentation of one of those men.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

So go ahead and have a gas at DeanTV and how ridiculous he is for going after his competitors. They're going through a primary process if you weren't aware (you see no one is actuallly "handpicked" in this race despite popular belief).

No, actually Dean hasn't stopped the party positioning stuff - he may have stopped using the "wing" statement but he is still is trying to paint himself as an outsider to washington's Democrats...who have only "talked" of prescription drugs for 8 years, and who voted for a Republican war....Oh yeah - he's not playing that game anymore

I guess we need to coin a new acronym - YADA - Yet Another Dean Apologist! :Q

It starts to get fun right about now - the attacks are starting since Dean has gone negative. I can't wait to see what Kerry is going to retort with.

BTW - howarddean.tv is run by Howard Dean That's what the little "Paid for By The Dean Campaign" sentence means at the bottom of the page.

I just acknowledged that he in fact "going after his competitors". I interpreted Clinton's "advice" to be against making broad empty generalizations like "I'm more of a Democrat than you", or "I'm electable and you aren't". I haven't seen that sort of attack in months. The Washington Times articles states that the DLC was attacking Dean back in May, but mentions nothing recent because there hasn't been anything recent. Looking back at it, Clinton's interview was actually conducted last month. I see clear distinction broad attacks and specific attacks on policy.

Dean's been attacked on his past positions by Gephardt, Lieberman, and Kerry for about 2 months now. Their respective camps have already been giving the media negative attack material, and those candidates have been stating the attack material during the debates. They've been doing it all throughout this most recent debate season.

But now that Dean makes commercials to attack the Washington candidates on their past records, that's when the attacks formally commence and "it starts to get fun"? TV commercials running in Iowa and New Hampshire cross the line Clinton was talking about? Are candidates not allowed to fight over the issues and past records during primary season?

Have you missed this whole Clark thing? You missed some of the Candidates trying to label clark as a non-Democrat? Wow, I think I even posted about it(maybe it was someone else though).
Yes the Candidates are allowed to fight over things - I never said they weren't. But i'll grab a big ol bowl of popcorn and sit back and watch the show. And yes Dean's ads are the "formal" start to it. Most of the TV ads have been only aimed at Bush, but the candidates have realized that just being anti-Bush isn't going to win them an election - they have to beat their opponents first before they can attempt to beat Bush.

Oh, and did anyone else hear the news about Dean hiring some guy named "Ace" out in California? Isn't he the same PI(Private Investigator) that Davis hired for OR(opposition research) in his California race? Interesting...

CkG