You know how Winners become winners? Because they think positive

And this negative "We don't have a strategy/We can't win" serves no purpose other than to help discourage people from wanting to get involved. Howard Dean has put together a great strategy of getting our party involved in all 50-states and I have seen great progress not only in 3 house races near where I live (PA-06, PA-07 and PA-08) but also with the opportunity of seeing Rick Santorum unemployed (I live in Delaware but just miles from the PA border).

You don't think the democratic party has a strategy for winning then get out from underneath that rock and start reading about Dean's plan. Get involved with a campaign or two or if possible, contribute a few dollars to help out someone to get elected. Even if you're handicapped, confined to your home on a fixed income you can still get involved by writing letters to the editor of your local paper as to why it's time to vote democratic in 2006 (and believe me, I know people like this and they are very involved with the elections - everyone gets involved in their own way to make a difference).

Whining & Negativity is nothing more than a contagious disease that helps dampen the spirits of others. Stand tall, be proud and get involved - even if you can only find 30mins a week to help out in someway to get more democrats elected - that's a step in the positive direction!

Well said.:toast:

there are actual studies around for you cyni- er - skeptics.

As soon as Terrell Owens started badmouthing his own team, the whole team just started taking a slide for the worse. Players, includng QB McNabb, were getting injured left and right and the overall tone in Philadelphia was one giant size black cloud. Hell by the end of the football season we couldn't beat a pee-wee football team if we tried. And this was a team that fell a TD short of winning the Super Bowl the year before.

We must keep positive with this 2006 because if we sit around and whine it's contagious and next thing you know we're on the path to losing. I will not allow that to happen. We have too much work to do in order to bring the win home this November

It sure as hell wasn't with his grasp of world events. He projected SUNNY OPTIMISM, a CAN DO attitude, and backed it up with a sense of BELIEF IN THE ABILITIES OF AMERICA AND AMERICANS.

I'll tell ya, if you actually HAVE the stuff, and can smear a paste of hopefulness atop it, ya can't lose, unless Diebold gets ya. And if ya do lose in that instance, your sunny supporters will take to the streets....

:D

"…committed to helping to deliver the Electoral Votes of Ohio to the President."
Walden O'Dell then-CEO, Diebold Corp. 2003.



I took to the streets. There was one other person with me. We'll have to do a little better than that.

He got thrown off his stride and on occasion resorted to SenatorSpeak. His campaign was not sunny enough, because he answered the GOP charges and allowed them to control the agenda. He should have done a little heckling back, in a cheerful way, of course, of the "There you go again" variety. He should have used shorter sentences, and smiled more. He has a winning smile. A little more friendly mocking, a little less 'serious' answering of fake charges--when you answer seriously, you give the accusation gravitas. A bit more "that's absolute crap" would have benefitted him--kinda the way Dean does it. And he should have thrown down fast on the Swiftboat shit, and done it HARD. He waited too long, and let that take root. His oppo team shoulda been smearing the shit out of the Corsi crowd, but they took way too high a road.

But he still won. Though it was close. And when you Diebold an election, you cannot cheat much beyond the polling margin of error.

Reagan won in a landslide, remember? But don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts.

That's what the 'sunny spread' and brutal organization on top of a lousy message can do.

When ya lather it on top of a good message, it's unbeatable.

…you may not want to bring Dean up as a good example of how to fight back against the Rethuglican media onslaught.

And they bagged him on two things: his insufficiently subservient WIFE, and that faux 'scream.' Aided and abetted by the corporate pigs in the media...

Otherwise, they couldn't lay a glove on the guy. He scared the shit out of everyone on both sides of the aisle....and hey, he consolidated some power despite that, because as we well know he's not sitting on his ass counting tongue depressors in VT nowadays.

There was also a shitload of tut-tutting from WITHIN the party, and that didn't help, either.

But Dean won something even more important--he's DNC chair; he controls the party blueprint. And that's the thing that will help us win in 06 and 08.

Other than that, how was the show, Mrs. Lincoln?

And no one is watching their shit anymore. Do you think Murdoch's hosting of Hillary's fundraiser was a one-off? He has no IDEOLOGICAL biases, he's a slave only to greed. Cash, cash, and more cash.

They need to play the other side for awhile, and make no mistake, they will. Ya gotta run with your customers, or you'll get trampled, and someone else will grab their dough.

But hey, this thread is about injecting positivism into campaigns, and your glass is apparently less than half full.

My sympathies. You must be very thirsty....

But read this, from the corporate pigs at FORBES:

The multitudes asked what made this interfaith ménage possible. The lure of the verboten fruit? Was alcohol involved? More likely, a dose of that sobering substance called realpolitik--a cocktail well-known to both Sen. Clinton and Murdoch.

First, the CEO: Sure, his media loudly support deregulation, tax cuts and the U.S. Patriot Act; but those instruments have also backed centrist Tony Blair in the U.K., as well as a certain social moderation when it comes to saucy U.S. TV broadcasts. There's a buck in the First Amendment.

Then, the politico: An "unapologetic" liberal symbol, Hilary pushed for nationalized medicine--but also sees the wisdom of a healthy business environment, and has angered some would-be allies by insisting that a sudden withdrawal from Iraq would be dangerous.

The term realpolitik was coined by Prussian Prince Otto von Bismarck, who defined politics as "the art of the possible." He then redrew the map of 19th century Europe.

In our current polarized age of extremes, will a Clinton-Murdoch alliance redraw America's political lines? Wait until July.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/10/murdoch-hillary-fundraiser-cx_gl_0510autofacescan07.html

...which could get you what you want.

Two places to go to get involved are in my signature. I'd invite people from other states to check out the Illinois Dem Net site because it's a concept that I think would be useful to export outside of my state, a website which points you to opportunities to participate.

I went to a party this weekend populated with a shitload of Northeast Dems. Very politically involved people, to a man or woman. Clued-in. Smart. Got access to people and information. You know; The Deep Skinny Crowd.

Seems we got ourselves a problem on the left of the Democratic Party. Seems that there is a lot of party leadership that wants us out. Out of the party. Out of politics. Gone. Seeya later. Bye-bye.

Oh, you would know the names of some of them. Schumer and Emanuel are two. Right now, the DLC *is* fighting tooth and nail for primacy, by any means, fair or foul. This fight has been engineered down to the local level and up to whatever level of the party you care to mention. They want to purge what they call "Those DFA Types".

Oh, did I mention that they are working hammer and tongs against Howard Dean? That they despise him for the people-oriented political changes he brought to the table, starting in 2004? Did I mention that most of the bad press that he gets is initially generated by Dems?

Frankly, I think that some, if not a lot of this negativity is generated from within our own ranks. It is being done purposefully and with malice aforethought. Bluntly: they don't want us around.

Once again: this is not conjecture or fantasy. This is from people who know.

And frankly, I smell astroturf.

Connecticut is an example that we can make a difference if we try.

Anyhow, after all the primaries are overwith all of them are fighting for the same things I'm fighting for and that's the democratic majority

out so quickly is that the estabs want the story dismissed because THEY have already opted for the approach that 2004 was lost BECAUSE the Dem parrty should have run a real centrist and not a liberal.

The strategists have their own southern strategy and it usually has to do with the idea that only southern governors can win - or centrist northerners - or someone attached to Bill Clinton.

If they're against it, then the GOP is the party for them.

Your info deserves it's own thread, BTW.

Liberals are their own worst enemies, in large part because of defeatist lines like this one.

Visualizing something really can help make it happen.

I think because once you visualize it, you know it is acheivable.

And when you know it is acheivable, you have the optimism to BUST YOUR BUTT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Kicking and Nominating

:patriot:

I'll be voting Democratic Socialist for U.S. house and Senate this November. (I live in Jane Harman's district and Feinstein's state.)

and neither of them passed BECAUSE REPUGS HAVE A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS

I mean geez - they should have passed

:eyes:

I don't get it - I thought both amendments were worthy of consideration. I knew that the Kerry/Feingold was too cut & dry for even some democrats to support but we had 39 democrats support the Levin amendment (which Feinstein was co-sponser) that demanded a exit strategy timeline.

More "R"s thand "D" mean the war will continue - end of discussion

and there is the added bonus of seeing Senator Pat "Cover-Up" Roberts have to give up his committee chair on the day we retake the Senate.

than purely symbolic. The Democratic Party still hasn't faced the fact that we have LOST in Iraq. Until they do, they as a party aren't much more honest than Repukes.

does not sound like a Democratic strategy. Instead, it sounds like pandering to elements of the base (sorry to use those words -- I really like Feingold a lot)

Come to think of it, what's the Democratic strategy on impeachment? (That's to my mind a minimum requirement to vote Democratic.)

Until the REPUGS have to vacate their committee chairs, Bush will not be investigated, much less impeached.

The Repugs are scared to death of Democrats with supeona power.

And every third party vote reassures them that they will stay in control.


---

tempted to vote Republican just to try to send her a message. (My opinion is shared by many on Los Angeles' west side.) I'll actually do far less damage to her by voting Democratic Socialist.

... plenty of Dems voted against them anyway.

And remember, it's more than just the war. Take your blinders off and realize that we have done some great things of recent like filibustering the Estate Tax and preventing that homophobic gay amendment bill.

I never said that the democratic party is perfect, but even on their absolutely worst day and the republican's best day I'd still support the democrat. And as someone who once had Rick Santorum as her senator for 8 years, I'd take Dianne Feinstein any day of the week

superior to Santorum. (That's damning her with faint praise, I'd say.) But her record on Iraq has been atrocious and she's un-responsive to her constituents (ME!) about it.

Do you even follow politics? Any? Seriously, don't make me laugh.

Feinstein is a goddess compared to that spawn of satan Rick Santorum. Pul-lease, I wouldn't even think of insulting Feinstein or any democrat for that matter by saying they are 'slightly morally' better than Santorum.

You know that's the problem with our part is we have fricking blinders on our eyes to not even understand ALL the aspects of any given elected representative to know it is more than one issue

Basically, my take on today's Repukes is they're pretty much all fascists, in love with power for its own sake at the expense of any transcendental moral principles, their rhetoric notwithstanding.

But are you aware of Feinstein's stance on the Iraq War? Now that Kerry has made his mea culpa for Iraq, I'm no longer willing to give any other Dem a break on their current stance on Iraq. I'm not even willing to listen to what a war pig like Feinstein or Jane Harman has to say on the subject any longer.

macrocosm ("We are all Iraqis"). So Jane Harman waited until five days before the primary to start touting her anti-war credentials. (I kid you not. I was at the meeting of the West LA Democratic club where Harman tried to make herself out to be anti-war and Marcy Winograd trounced her for the club's endorsement. No wonder.)

Feinstein's hubby, Richard Blum, is one of the war profiteers. So one can legitimately wonder whether her pro-war votes were taken in the public's interest.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

At least I'm doing something about ending the war because even though the democrats have disappointed me, I know that without a majority the war will continue on and on and on and on and on.... If the next administration is republican then it will continue on. Do you understand any of this - REPUBLICAN CONTROL MEANS MORE WAR

At least with a democrat majority not only do we have a chance to get the debate on the floor - a real and meaningful debate but we can also take control of DOZENS of other issues out there that are also extremely important like choice, environment, healthcare, unions, civil rights - do I need to name the rest.

Your plan is a loser plan and more republican control. Sorry, that is what it is. I know that we might not end the war right even with democratic control but we have a better chance, a stronger chance of getting this war ended. Please take the blinders out and see what is happening.

Feinstein, the war will go "on and on and on" (to quote your post).

Now that Kerry has issued his mea culpa on his pro-IWR vote, I'm no longer willing to give any Dem a break on their pro-war stance. I'm not even willing to listen to what war pigs like Lieberbush and Harman have to say any longer. The blood of too many people is on their hands (and on yours if you support them).

that nothing has been done about fraudulent voting. It will be much worse this year than it was in 2004.

fraudulent election administration

vote theft

I think that RFK Jr's story in Rolling Stone was an eye-opening piece from a major name in politics that could get more people involved. But it's the same thing as the war - as long as republicans are in charge nothing will change.

As long as nothing changes, the Republicans will continue to "win" elections.

We cannot GOTV our way out of this anymore, and we certainly won't be able to do so
in 2008 without the Voting Rights Act.

We have to fight the fraud itself, and let people know we're fighting it.

because now it was in black & white in a major magazine

Check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=245x22589

It includes a link to download the movie.

Very powerful stuff!

Ha ha just kidding.

Well, not really.