Do you attack rather than critique democratic candidates?

[LanternWaste]

Let me qualify this by saying I have neither chosen, not ruled out a candidate in the Democratic primary yet... I'm slowly doing my research into each candidate's position on the matters I think are critical. I'll eventually make a decision, but I don't see that happening until next summer...

I figure I'm pretty wide open to information, critiques and examinations of each individual candidate. In so many words, I'm asking you to convince me to vote for your candidate.

And one more qualifier-- this post is targeted solely at those who attack a candidate (and c'mon, we all know who you all are...)




Having said that, I'm wondering if you actually believe that denigrating or tearing down an opponent rather than simply critiquing that candidates position on issues is an effective way of convincing me who's the best candidate (notice the distinction between critiquing a candidate or denigrating a candidate).

I trying to understand why you continue to attack the candidates, or interpret what a candidate says in the worst possible manner to suit your own agenda. Do you honestly believe that you're going to garner support for your candidate in this way? Is there a reason you don't stick to the actual issues, and instead come across as a partisan hack (at best) or a benighted, attack-machine (at worst)?

Are you just angry and venting on a message board, or do you think you're actually being effective?


I'm going to make a pledge-- when I do decide on a candidate, I may take issue with another candidates position, but I won't impugn, slander or malign them-- because I'm better than that, and I honestly think you are, too.

[BOSSHOG]

1. I've yet to attack a dem candidate and have no plans to

If one does something or says something incredibly stupid, I won't have to attack them. I save my vitriol for where it belongs, towards the party that cares not for the constitution or the troops or the working men and women of this country.

[welshTerrier2]

2. candidate supporters are just as shallow as most of the attackers

i think the argument you've raised is a two-way street. polls, endorsements and "seeming presidential" are NOT issues and they are not reasons anyone should support a candidate.

i'm in full agreement that criticisms, and words of support as well, should be based on the issues.

[LanternWaste]

8. You're probably right--

You're probably right-- placing a candidate on a pedestal out of a cult of personality is just as narrow-minded as attacking one. But there is is a difference (to me, anyways)-- the person engaged in the cult of personality may be narrow-minded, but he/she is not being mean or uncivil.

And I have but to look back to the halcyon days of the 2004 primaries to remember how... nasty it got around here. Good people, nice people, friendly people saying the most vile things.

And another poster on this thread had it right, too. No one will 'fess up to an out and out attack on a candidate, but I do hope reading the OP will give them pause to think that they're not doing anyone any good, least of all their own candidate.

For example, there's been some OP's and replies to OP's about Obama that did nothing but tear the guy down-- nothing about issues, nothing about character, just attacks; and I gotta admit-- those posts tearing him down tempt me to vote for him just to piss in that posters coffee... most likely NOT his/her intended consequence.

I guess things will get uglier here before they get better, but that doesn't mean I have to like it...

[tularetom]

3. I have criticized some of the candidates

although I have not done so with the intention of tearing down or denigrating any candidate. I don't care who supports who - this is an opinion forum and I'm as entitled to express my opinion as anyone else. I will support the eventual Democratic nominee as vigorously as I possibly can but it wasn't my idea to begin the nominating process 18 moonths before the election. By the time a nominee is selected there are going to be a lot of burned out voters and tempers will begin to fray so we can expect some harsh language. I'm with you in hoping we can dispense with personal attacks.

I will make no untruthful statements about any candidate but I reserve the right to state my opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

4. ugly primaries make me cringe

California was poorly served by the Westley v. Angelides debacle.

[ellacott]

5. Very few here would be honest enough to admit they attack candidates

They attack candidates along with supporters.

[CreekDog]

6. Is it considered an attack when I watch the back of our candidates?

So, when people were ragging on Edwards about his money or his hair, I went after a lot of DU'ers who did so for being shortsighted, unfair, innaccurate, inconsistent and/or not backing up their assertions with evidence.

Not being a fan of Hillary, I have stepped into threads where people have bogus-ly slandered her record or claimed that she hasn't done anything.

Yesterday, I jumped in to defend Jim Webb not for his FISA vote, which I didn't agree with, but simply to say that, yes he is a good and intelligent man, who voted differently than I wanted him to. All but a few posts in that thread had all but written Webb off as "stupid", "coward", a tool and the like, attacking his intelligence and his character --again, without evidence.

All that said, why do I need to defend good people against attackers at DU?

What the hell is the matter with some people at DU that attack other Democrats without having proper evidence and without fairness? Some DU'ers who attack other Democrats as lacking character or spine or intelligence because that representative voted differently than the poster would have. I mean, Dianne Feinstein drives me crazy with her votes sometimes, but I don't doubt her intelligence (she is very smart), or her character (she's been consistent and principled many years), or her courage (I think she makes up her own mind and never votes against what she believes). My own congressman, Tom Lantos, voted for the IWR and people actually suggested that he was a tool, a dummy, etc. Actually, he's very smart and he's tougher than any of us having survived the holocaust and he's extremely principled and nevermind that his votes could actually lose him the primary this time around.

So, that's my beef with the DU'ers that attack the Dems and do so without evidence, without fairness and without accuracy and frequently, they do it using Republican talking points.

[wyldwolf]

7. let's define the terms

Posting a negative article on a candidate vs. personally attacking a candidate.

In other words, a NY Times article critacle of candidate "A" vs. a DUer calling candidate "B" a "Republican" or a "whore."

[LanternWaste]

9. I think it's less a technical definition than it is...

I think it's less a technical definition than it is simply and easily inferred ugliness. In other words, regardless of how cleverly a poster hides or disguises ugliness, it's still pretty darn ugly and obvious. It's flame bait and I think the person should get called on it each and every time they do it.

Of course, each instance is different, and if I was wise enough to lay out an all-encompassing definition of An Ugly Attack Post, I would-- but I'm not the wisest guy in the world.

But as I responded up thread, I keep keep forgetting how nasty it got in here during the 2004 primaries. And keeping that in mind, I guess my OP is rather futile in the end.... :(