Skip to main content

View Diary: Trippi Op-Ed in the WSJ: Yes. Yes. Yes! (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Kerry was the wrong candidate (3.00)
    he was nominated my momentum in a rigged up primary system and the sclm blaring "electability" in our ear. And only when he parroted Dean's stump speech hook line and sinker.

    Once people finally admit that we can move on and Take back America.

    •  Bush was the WRONGEST Candidate (none)
      Thats why I gave you a "2".
      •  seems like a pretty stupid reason... (none)
        since it's not what the poster said.  I do believe he said wrong, not "wrongest"

        Osama's followers think he has "moral values" too.

        by ragnark on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 02:11:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe it's just me (none)
          but that first sentence seemed not to make sense, and the rest of the declarative was way more fitting of Bush than Kerry.

          Maybe you can explain why my reply rubbed you the wrong way.

          •  asdf (none)
            As a commentary on the stupid-ass "electability meme and the stupidity of the primary system (this coming from someone who lived in NH for the past 7 years), I think it made perfect sense.

            While the comment was nothing special, I didn't think the reason you gave made any sense.  Obviously, looking at it from the standpoint of the General Election makes your comment make sense; but when discussing primary candidates, simply replying "hey, you got a 2 because you didn't qualify your statement by saying Bush sucks worse" just seemed a little dumb to me.

            One last take on the electability meme:
            "I'm electable if you vote for me!"
            -Dennis Kucinich

            Osama's followers think he has "moral values" too.

            by ragnark on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 02:38:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Makes perfect sense (none)
            Once you look past the typo and read for content.


                "he was nominated my momentum in a rigged up primary system"


                "he was nominated by momentum in a rigged up primary system"

            and the first sentence is perfectly clear.

            I can't speak for ragnark, but it wasn't your reply that rubbed me the wrong way.  It was that you intended to downrate because Bush was a wronger candidate than Kerry. (Which is true, but irrelevent) Downrating because you disagree with the sentiments expressed is a violation of the spirit of the DKos law.  But in the end it doesn't matter, because somehow you managed not to rate it at all.  So no harm, no foul.

            The chips are down. Find your outrage.

            by sj on Tue Nov 30, 2004 at 02:51:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for decodifying the 1st sentence (none)
              Of Genf's comment. It is evident from the "rapid response reaction" to my perceived slighting comment, that he must be one of the 'Trusted Yodas' of this forum.

              You rightly point out that my rating did not register, but you neglect to mention that two others rated his/her entry at 3 or less also.

              Let me explain  to you and others who reacted negatively to my comment what bothered me about about the thrust of Genf's comment, which by the way repeats the tone  many of the "Elders'" post election messages.

              First of all, let me make clear Kerry was my THIRD CHOICE for Dem nominee. But once he was chosen by our imperfect warts-and-all system, I backed him to the hilt.

              I also believe there are enough questions about flawed/rigged election process for loyal Dems to withhold giving in to the republican line at this point, and to insist on clear transparent verification of tallies, voting mechanics, and exit poll data BEFORE the results are finalized.

              To say at this point that Kerry was the "Wrong candidate" is plain and simple  victimized defeatist, Bushco enabling, battered wife  (where did I go wrong) type thinking that we should all refuse to lapse into at this point.

              They stole 2000, and we should reject the line Bushco is trying to feed the country until it can be proven otherwise.

              I do not understand why the "where did we go wrong" meme is so prevalent among the elders on this site.

              see the insightful essay below that expresses this concept very well.


              The only thing BushCo is good at is stealing elections


              •  Neglect to mention? (none)
                You're right.  I neglected to mention something that was unrelated to my point (is this Nedra Pickler?).  My point being that you intended to downrate for disagreement.

                And you're welcome for the clarification.

                The chips are down. Find your outrage.

                by sj on Thu Dec 02, 2004 at 11:30:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  And I gave you a "!" (none)
        because you have no business rating the previous comment a 2 simply because he said Kerry was the wrong candidate.  The poster has a right to express his/her opinion.  There was no profanity in the post.

        You simply, did not agree and therefore felt you could rate him a 2.  You rated according to your emotion and not your head.  Get your act together.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site