2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

"At this point, there's no way we're going to endorse anybody," he said. "I think we need a rest. Maybe in an asylum."

You started to express your position on Kerry back when Dean, Sharpton and even less electable candidates were in the running. [..] There's a big jump from those commonplace points to the declaration that Kerry is the worst and least electable.

link: "I think that of all the main contenders we've seen, Kerry is perhaps the single weakest. Well, there's Lieberman, of course, and I'm not counting Kucinich, Sharpton and Mosely-Brown. But Edwards, Clark and Gephardt all stand (or would have stood) a better chance against Bush, imho. Even with Dean - I dunno, he could have been an utter failure - but there was also always the off-chance he'd surprise us."

link "I am not the only one here who fears Kerry wont make it. Yes, he's made the "safest" impression thus far. Yes, Dean would have been a dangerous gamble. But I got a sizeable enough chunk of the pundits crowd behind me in fretting that Kerry is just too weak [..] to make it against [Bush] in the final campaign."

link "So -- I dont think Kerry will make it. Alternative options, its true, are not great. Dean is obviously out. That leaves Clark and Edwards."

"Kerry is in fact the less electable candidate, in comparison (with Edwards, that is)."

"Thing is, the whole long-winded point I'd been making was that the exit polls seem to confirm that Kerry is actually the less electable candidate" (note: less, not least)

"my independently argued theories about why Kerry is the worse candidate" (note: worse, not worst)

"Kerry has, until now, been resoundingly coming out on top of Edwards et al. Yet I submit that Edwards (et al.) would be a better person to run against Bush." ("et alia" being, of course, the other candidates I had specified as being better than Kerry).

"Kerry is shown more "electable" than Dean. But Edwards, we just dont know, cause he hasnt had the chance yet to be projected on in this way."

"My case that Kerry is the worst the Dems could plausibly have picked" (This is actually the only time I've used the word "worst" that you've been flinging back at me 20+ times. But note: the worst the Dems could plausibly have picked. They couldnt, imho, plausibly have nominated Sharpton, hello.)

"Much of [the polls] suggest confirmation for my case for Edwards over Kerry. None of them suggested confirmation for my case for Clark over Kerry - so I'm not so sure about that one anymore. Gephardt was already out, so - we'll never know. My rather hesitant case that even Dean might possibly have been better was never based on polls"

"there's poll numbers there that suggest Kerry is a worse candidate than Edwards when it comes to clinching the swing voters you need to win the elections."

"my theory that Kerry was less electable than Edwards"

Since she lost her position as an accountant for Siemens in Gainesville, Ga., and had a lot of time on her hands, she decided to volunteer for Mr. Edwards's campaign.

"I believe he is the one who can beat George Bush," Ms. Wells said. "He's got that Southern thing going for him. He will hand you your guts on a platter, and you will thank him for it before you even feel the knife."

THE GENERAL'S SWAN SONG: I know this may be old news, but while we're on the subject of Wes Clark, I can't resist passing on the story of how Clark spent the final night of his campaign Wednesday in Little Rock after he bowed out of the race and began his bid to be John Kerry's vice president.

Semi-chilled Bud Light was the drink of choice, as it was on the Clark campaign bus. The already paper-thin wall separating the young Clark media embeds and the young Clark staffers was finally torn down, and both sides joined the general in the kitchen. There, at the top of his lungs, the former Supreme Allied Commander sang Madonna's "Like a Prayer" and Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'." One ex-Clarkie quipped, "The scariest part was that he knew all the words."

Read the sentence again, Scrat.

"into the English lexicon."

Now maybe if I had said, 'entry', instead of 'origin', you wouldn't be so confused...

Of course, you may have just selected a minor semantical difference instead of addressing the topic in order to say something when you had actually nothing to say, or perhaps you think I meant to leave my wording open to the wrong inference (wrong again, if so), or maybe you're one of the minority of conservatives that just likes Nazi comparisons.

It really doesn't matter which it happens to be, to me...

This is why I am puzzled and pissed. You have continually turned my cautiously formulated arguments into much more sweeping statements - just see that numbered listing in the last post above for myriad examples. And then you relentlessly attacked "my" statements, the way you rephrased them, for being irresponsibly sweeping - liberally spicing your posts with accusations of cluelessness, recklessness and sloppiness.

Now I am a perfectionist, and I am insecure enough to have a pathologically strong sense of accountability, so I can easily be teased into justifying, elaborating and specifying any of my arguments at length when accused of sloppiness. And you have kept me busy all of yesterday this way. Yet time and again, I found that you attacked me for generalisations you inserted into my statements.

This must be the bottom-line case.

Now the above is my entire track record on Kerry Vs. Other-Dems. No, I did NOT say Kerry was less electable than Sharpton or Kucinich.

When you then slammed me for being clueless, sloppy and whatnot, I scrupulously defended every detail of it against your attack - only to find out, after all of this discussion, that the attack's bottom line rested on a careless misreading on your part. Next time you can play with Noah again.

McGentrix wrote:

PDiddie, you really stepped over the line of civil discourse with your Republican-Nazi party comment. It seems you blahblahblah whine bitch moan

Who used the word 'juggernaut', Gomer?

It's amusing, but a bit sad, to see you get overpowered intellectually in these fora on a daily basis.

I'd actually feel less sorry for you if you weren't so consistently embarrassed.

The dysynergistic combination of your wits and an intellectually bankrupt political philosophy make it no surprise -- really -- to see you lash and thrash like a drowning man every time you're corrected.

Most adults would move on, but I have observed you always like to get in the last word, even if that last word makes you look like a fool.

I'll try to understand that from now on and just ignore you (if you think that would make you feel better)...

Now I'm off to dinner and some lively face-to-face conversation with a few liberals and conservatives, which should allow you ample time to compose a response that doesn't involve an ad hominem.

Good fortune... :wink: