Can we stop this nonsense?

[Colobo]

Are we forgetting where we are at? This forum is called Democratic Underground, not anti-Hillary, anti-Obama or anti-Edwards Underground.

Are we forgetting what the Democratic primaries are all about? This is an INTERNAL process, among Democrats, to pick our presidential candidate. We have an EXCELLENT, very DEEP field of candidates, and they ALL are on our side. We have to pick one of them to represent us in the GE, but our real fight is AGAINST REPUBLICANS, not against ourselves. For instance, your support against a certain candidate SHOULD NOT EQUATE A WAR AGAINST THE OTHERS.

We are not achieving anything by attacking those who support other candidates or by posting crap about the candidates we don't support. We achieve something by posting things that elevate our preferred candidates and let others know why they should reconsider. WHY CAN'T WE LEAVE THE ATTACKING TO THOSE RUNNING? Yes, they have to do it because it is part of the process, but we are not running for office, WE ARE A COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRATS ON THE NET AND WE SHOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY.

Every time someone comes up with some RIGHT WING attack line against HRC, OBAMA or any of the others, REPUBLICANS WIN, because we are forgetting what unites us and focusing on our temporary differences. They are hoping we come out of the primaries divided, weak, resentful, and we can't let that happen.

So, let's disagree. Let's root for our preferred candidate. Let's make sure everyone here knows why they should give our candidate a chance. LET'S NOT, HOWEVER, FALL INTO FRATRICIDE. Let's be smart enough to IGNORE those who are just looking to create controversy, and let's embrace those who are always willing to engage in a civil debate.

C'mon, people, we can do this. For the well being of the boards, for our party, for our candidates and for ourselves. Let's stop the nonsense.

A big hug to all my Democratic brothers and sisters in the GDP section, regardless of who they might be supporting. WE WILL WIN BIG IN 08, BECAUSE WE HAVE A SUPERB LINEUP. Let's not forget it.

[redqueen]

1. Wow

That induced a major flashback to 2003.

You ain't seen n-n-nothin yet!

[Colobo]

3. Very sad indeed.

[theoldman]

2. I guess it's time to quote Will Rogers again.

Rogers said that he did not belong to any organized political party, he was a Democrat.

[MaineDem]

4. "A big hug to all my Democratic brothers in the GDP section,"

Thank you but does that apply to Democratic sisters as well?

I had to do that.

I do agree with the premise of your OP however. Indeed I do. It's a primary. The candidates are all Democrats. The best one will win and go on to victory in November.

[Colobo]

5. Fixed. :)

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you.

Nominated.

[Dawgs]

7. I agree with everything you said, but...

can I still defend my candidate from the attacks and lies?

[Bake]

22. I think the point was to stop the attacks and lies in the first place.

Not that THAT'S gonna happen ...

Bake

[LeftCoast]

8. I wish you luck in this endeavor but this happens every primary season here

:hi:

[Buzz Clik]

9. (checking watch) Must be time for the hourly plea for civil discourse.

I agree with the sentiment, but I hope you didn't spend a lot of time composing that post: it will be ignored.

[Lindsey]

13. I think we can maybe discuss why we do want someone and why we

don't want someone else in a more civil manner. That would be my preference. However, people here are very passionate. I know who I don't want and why and I know who I do want and why but I haven't gotten nasty about it. We do need to discuss our POV so that we can maybe shed some light that's others wouldn't have thought about in that particular way. As far as who I don't want, if someone were to present a really good, well thought-out argument, I would consider being more open minded. Look, the bottom line is that we want a Dem. I think most of us agree that we want stem-cell research, we want to uphold Roe V. Wade, we want some type of Universal Health Care, we want out of Iraq, and basically agree on many of the most important issues. I happen to be anti-death penalty but probably not all Dems. are - that's fine. We have to pick our battles. This is the time to get it all out but I agree, sometimes it gets pretty rough.

[emilyg]

10. I think I love you.

[Colobo]

11. I'm single, so...

:hi: :)

[Perky]

12. I agree but the real issue is civility

I am going to call people out when I think they step over the line in attacking my candidate. I expect the same in return. It is more a matter of tone than content. Everyone is going to spin for their guy or gal, it is just how we go about doing it.

What gets us into trouble are all the posts which slam the other guy rather than pitch the greatness of our own guy. I would like to see alot less of that becuse it is not all helpful and tend to entrench rather than convince......but only if the other guys stop slamming as well....lol

We can create our own decorum can't we?

[Colobo]

14. Good point; we all need to be much more civil.

[CreekDog]

17. The real issue is being right, not being civil

But being careful to be correct and backing up one's statements pretty much tones down any statements because the most outlandish ones tend not to be substantiated.

I do think being civil is important, but that being right is more important.

[rinsd]

15. You rock Katz (nt)

[CTD]

16. If the Dem field is so "deep", why do I not feel any passion for supporting any of them?

Why do I and so many others here pray for Gore or Clark to get into the race?

I think I know why I feel that way. Because the "big three" of the Dems are pretty much unelectable in the general election. Hillary and Obama won't play well with large swaths of the electorate (for reasons that I lament but cannot deny still exist). And Edwards would get chewed up and spit out by the GOP attack machine. If you think thought that they made Kerry be perceived as an effete wuss, just wait until they start to defame Edwards.

And worse than her unelectability as far as my interest and support goes, IMO, is Clinton's right-wing positions on foreign policy. And I can't argue with those who see Obama as critically inexperienced.

And while I like Edwards, Gore or Clark would just be such stronger candidates.

So enough with this "deep field" crap. The only thing "deep" is the cumulative pile of bullshit Hillary has spewed to date in her quest to avoid taking a solid position on anything.

[HughMoran]

19. Ripping people who do support those on top

is productive?

If you don't like who is winning, how is attacking the messenger helpful?

[sandnsea]

27. They will destroy Gore too

They will turn him into the ranting maniac reminiscent of Dean, lying flip-flopper like Kerry, and clown-like rube with bad hair like Kucinich - all rolled up in one. His policies make it worth going through the ringer with him - but don't think for a minute he won't be slaughtered by the GOP.

[HughMoran]

18. I wonder why there is so much attacking going on

If you like a candidate, support them - show us why we should vote for them.

Attacking the other candidates who may be doing better than yours for some reason is divisive and reeks of sour grapes IMO.

[RandomKoolzip]

20. Oh yeah, this'll help....

:eyes:

Such "STOP THE INSANITY!" posts are becoming as common as the boring-ass "my candidate is pure and yours is EVIL EVIL EVILLLL!" posts.

How's about this? I don't think anyone is still searching for their own "favorite" candidate on DU anymore. The bickering won't help those looking for their personal choice of president; everyone knows Hillary's and Barack's and John's and Dennis' good points and bad points by now. Pretty much everyone's made their mind up, eh? Right? So why don't we all just keep it to ourselves and present a dignified, united front on the major issues, then vote with our consciences in the primaries?

Is THAT too much to ask?

[BornagainDUer]

21. Actually I'd like to see all of this anti-stuff turn into

GO DENNIS KUCINICH!!

That guy is kicking some serious gluteous maximus.

[sandnsea]

23. I am anti-Hillary

Although I do think one can oppose a candidate based on policies and record, and not resort to distortions and petty personality attacks. I would be very sad if Hillary were our candidate and have little hope for a true new direction. I think it's a truth worth fighting over.

[trayted]

25. I am anti-Hillary as the Democratic nominee in 2008. I'm all for her staying in the Senate.

[sandnsea]

26. Considering some of NY's choices

I guess she's as good as can be expected there.

[trayted]

24. Since when did highlighting differences become "anti-" anything? Stressing differences is important

Hillary Clinton doesn't want us to focus on differences, because doing so highlights her flaws.

The truth is, the reason why many Democratic voters see nothing wrong with supporting Clinton and Obama mainly because one is female and the other is black as many "non-involved" Democrats will tell you if you ask them who they are supporting, is because of the myth that "Democrat equals Democrat," as if there are no differences between the candidates on the issues. Since there are no "perceived" differences between the candidates on the issues, then the subjective differences become paramount, like "first female President" or "first black President" instead of "who do I agree with the most" or "who has the best chance to win out of those that I agree the most with."

Stressing differences is a part of democracy, and it should be at the heart of the primary process.

This isn't a beauty contest to see who can wave the best, or play the part the best. This is about choosing the best candidate, and the only way you are going to do that is to focus on the differences.

I resent the notion that to talk about what makes Clinton, Obama, and Edwards different is to be "anti-" them.

If 50% of voters say they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, Democrats need to hear that all of the time and consider it.

If the "Barack Obama is too inexperienced" excuse that many voters will use to justify a vote against him just because he is black, which is already starting to float around, Democrats need to think "now" about what that might mean for Obama in a general election, if they nominate him.

If John Edwards -- and I'm having a problem thinking of something valid to say here since most of the fake scandals against him so far this year have been fabricated by the establishment media -- isn't as strong on the social issues as many here would like him to be, there's nothing wrong with people saying it.

Talking about the differences between the candidates is the only way that you will make a wise choice, unless you'd rather focus on the surface, meaning "Democrat," instead of the substance, meaning what each Democrat believes and how he or she would govern as President. I prefer the latter.

[William769]

28. I agree with you in theory but as you can see by two posts in this thread already

It ain't gonna happen. I tried to be civil at one time, it didn't last the day though.

I have said repeatedly who ever the Democratic nominee is They will get my vote. How many times has there been a post I will never ever vote for Hillary for any reason? I can sling with the best of them.

[trayted]

29. Highlighting differences is a part of the political process. If you don't like democracy,

become a Republican.

[William769]

31. And where did I say I didn't like Democracy?

"Become a Republican", How original. Your type is so predictable.

[trayted]

32. The problem for you all is the Republicans have been pushing this "you can't disagree with Bush"

foolishness or else you're un-American, for the past 6 years, and so now, there are Democrats who think it's "un-Democratic" to talk about what Hillary Clinton is actually about.

I call a spade a spade. The Republicans were wrong, and so are Democrats to try to pull that nonsense.

The primaries are for looking at the differences between candidates. Not for patting each other on the back about the field. There is supposed to be disagreement among the voters, because if there isn't, the party establishment is just going to end up coronating the one that they want.

An informed electorate is the best way to counter top-down manipulation. The only way people will be informed is to talk about differences. I don't see what's so hard about doing that and still "respecting" the process and the other candidates.

[William769]

34. Where did I say you can't disagree?

On edit: This is what I am talking about. "I have said repeatedly who ever the Democratic nominee is They will get my vote. How many times has there been a post I will never ever vote for Hillary for any reason? I can sling with the best of them." Do you agree or disagree?

[Catchawave]

30. Bookmarking this thread

for obvious reasons :evilgrin:

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[alteredstate]

35. k & r n/t

[rosesaylavee]

36. K & R

Good points. Thanks for posting such a reasonable thread.