Regretfully, I'm just going to consider this an Obama-"supporting" site until after the convention.

[Sparkly]

After the convention, if Obama gets the nomination, the absolutism of Clinton/Evil vs Obama/Virtuous might be over with, so hopefully we could get on the same page.

After the convention, if Clinton gets the nomination, there might be a dozen people left here, but hopefully we could get on the same page.

MY page is about defeating McCain.

MY page is about getting a Democrat in the White House.

MY page is about getting SOME progress -- or at least just stopping the bleeding -- on the environment, healthcare, the Iraq Fiasco, energy, corporate welfare, reproductive rights, the Constitution, the entire takeover of the judicial system, our nation's place in the world, the complete selling out of our economy, etc. etc. etc... And there is very little difference between Clinton and Obama on any important issues.

MY favorite candidates are/were General Clark and Dennis Kucinich -- in other words, people who can't get elected, because they aren't "Politicians" in the usual sense. Give me a Kweisi Mfume, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, David Brock, Michael Moore, Gloria Steinem, Mario Cuomo -- these admirable people have embraced different candidates, or no candidate, but all want a Democrat in the White House.

I think sites like DU can help us organize, and vent, and learn. Before and during the Gore/Bush campaigns, I debated on a CNN forum (anyone else remember that one?) and AOL forums populated with true morans. Husb would come in and say, "Are you typing to morons again?" I'd realize what a time-wasting exercise in frustration I was engaged in and all worked up about, and confess, "Yeah..." And sign off.

Then it was MediaWhoresOnline, Bartcop, and the Clark campaign forum. Husb still came in asking, "Are you typing to morons again?" "But these aren't morons!" He was skeptical, but dipped a toe or two in.

Then it was DU -- "Are you typing to morons again?" "These are definitely not morons!" I insisted. There was so much wit, knowledge and depth here. Very little knee-jerk automatisms, misinformation or rigidity -- well, just enough to keep it interesting -- and NO overall mob mentality. (Several opposing mobs, perhaps, and I'm sure I joined in with some of those at different times.) Certainly not a leftwing version of Freeperville, because DUers deal in facts. And FACTS are the rails that keep us on course.

How things have changed. It seems we don't need no stinkin' facts around here these days! Assert the accepted thing, and facts aren't required -- you're golden. You've heard and read all you need to, and know, just know, that's all! It's enough to be convinced in your gut -- so convinced that you're infuriated. "Here's your evidence (insert cherry-picked half-truth here)!" "Here's what matters (insert absurd distraction of the day here)!" "And if you aren't buying that, you're supporting this (insert exploitation of tragic story, shocking photograph, or other emotional appeal here)!" "We're on the side of truth, peace, justice, and all that's right; YOU are therefore on the side of lies, war, injustice, and all that's wrong!" In short, yeah -- it IS becoming the parallel of Freeperville.

It's the same brand of blind, thoughtless politics I've rejected before. It's no better than "Al Gore said he invented the internet" or "John Kerry faked his wounds" or "There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in harm's way" or "Wesley Clark cheered the Iraq war." There's a mob mentality here that's every bit as vehement and self-assured as those who repeated such tidbits of "common wisdom" then.

In this place and time, of course, it happens to be directed against Hillary Clinton.

(Kneejerk alert: "Sparkly must be a Clinton supporter! I KNEW IT!")

It says something about the current tenor of DU that I'm not even believed when I say neither Clinton nor Obama thrill me, and either is acceptable. (Husb2Sparkly isn't believed either, although he is more likely to say he can't stand either of them.) To me, they're both politicians -- nothing more nor less -- and that's really okay. (I don't necessarily need them to be guiding lights of any sort.) We're accused of lying because the lines of combat here require that we MUST fit neatly into one camp or another. We MUST be cast as good or evil, as friends or enemies. (As neat and simplistic as an episode of Tweety's show! Or any sports event.)

Consider the possibility that some people actually ARE neutral -- enthused about both, tepid about both, cold about both -- and equally willing to vote for either. Consider the possibility that someone can come here completely neutral and sign off as a Clinton defender royally perturbed at Obama's "supporters" -- quotation marks because I think that's the intent, but not the effect. Whenever I take a break from DU, it seems worse when I come back (attribute to my perspective or the reality here).

Consider the possibility that both Clinton and Obama are politicians. Neither will change politics, and neither will continue the GOP agenda. Neither is running a squeaky clean campaign nor a crazy dirty one -- the campaigns are simply whatever is deemed likely to work best for the candidate. It's really NOT all that moralistic or emotional.

I've tried in every subtle way to try to hold this mirror up. I confess I'm a teacher, and tend to approach things didactically -- through polls, provocation, leading questions and comments (and facts, forgetting how little they can matter!) Lately, too often, I feel as I did years ago on that CNN forum and AOL -- the way I feel arguing with rightwingers. It's the same mob mentality of "truthiness" that cannot be reasoned with.

Such "debates" on DU these days are such an unproductive waste of energy among people who largely agree on issues. They seem like exercises in emotional catharsis of some sort. At best, they don't get us anywhere, and at worst, they make attaining the real goals more difficult.

I still think internet forums can help further the causes I (we) believe in. And I really believe the admins here want a forum that will generate positive results. But right now, sadly, I'm seeing a new brand of something I've been against for as long as I can remember.

Yeah, I know -- this won't make any difference, either.

I guess I'm just sayin'. :(

[jillan]

1. Excellent rant!

[zabet]

295. Yes indeed, a righteous rant..

and chock full of the truth too.

:kick: and Highly recommended!

[MADem]

2. It is. So is KOS. Bright spot--you can get more done, because it's less fun here.

I did some yard work the other day. Maybe I'll do some car work this week!

Consider the source. All I can say is, if you don't know the newcomer and they are being obstreperous, well...consider the source.

I suspect many of these "folks" will be gone soon enough.

[natrat]

208. most liberal sites realize clinton is a scam

[pingzing58]

250. Sorry, but can't stand Obama's preacher style accent. It's driving me nuts. He sounds like a snake

oil salesman!

[DMorgan]

273. Oh, I'm sure you don't really listen anyway, so

John McCain sounds like your grandfather. Carry on!

[MADem]

252. No, most do not. Just a few that are overrun with enthused pups. NT

[Jakes Progress]

275. They are both scams.

But you have bought into one of them.

[JoFerret]

294. people are so easily scammed

and what's worse is how easily they turn to parroting the right wing smears and lies when it suits them. the trashing of good dems here on this site is appalling.

[goldcanyonaz]

3. It has been the Obama Underground since Iowa.

[trueblue2007]

62. That is why I'm rarely here

I can't bear the name calling. The hateful notes etc.
I don't like this place and will not donate to my candidates through DU. I think it's better going directly to the person I'm supporting.

If this forum ever gets back to supporting DEMS instead of being a hatefest, I'll be back.

[ooglymoogly]

140. and I love this site because it is peopled with very smart people who do their homework and

do not suffer fools gladly.

[WillyToad]

232. Actually there are a lot of hysterics here and people jump on any negative thing that comes along...

They dont care wether it is true or not, they just want to do damage. All they damage is their own integrity.

[Razorblade01]

260. Right On TrueBlue!

Gosh you're so correct!

[DMorgan]

274. If you can't stand the heat of politics, the concept of debating ideas, then

perhaps you need to find a flower club to join, something less stressful for you brain.

The idea that you have to take every post as an insult, that you can't discuss ideas, or really look at issues.......well, I pity you, if you're an American, who promised that democracy would be easy?

[NorthCarolina]

85. Well, he's been ahead since Iowa so doesn't it seem credible that

there would be heavy support for him here on DU because of that? I will never understand how the supporters that side with the trailing candidate can't seem to figure out why a site like DU would have an overwhelming number of members posting in favor of the front runner.

In any other part of the world that would probably looked at as a logical, but here it's viewed with skepticism, whining, and insult. Very odd when you think about it, and certainly not based in "logic".

[Tunkamerica]

176. you just blew my mind. n/t

[papau]

185. NH win? - your logic is interesting

[The Doctor.]

117. Perhaps it's worth considering that there's something to that?

I mean, when a large majority of people gravitate around a candidate, especially a Democratic candidate, it's a bet dismissive, and even a little ignorant to assume 'there's no reason' for it simply because one can't see a valid reason.

There are many, many good reasons for supporting both candidates, and the Obama supporters certainly have their very legitimate reasons too.

I would think that when such a majority supports a candidate, that's a good indication that there are reasons for that support.

Don't you agree?

[Jakes Progress]

276. When you speak of "large majority" you confuse

blogland with real world. In the real world he doesn't have a "large majority". In fact some polls show him with a minority of voters. His popularity here may be due to many things, but not his "large majority" of support in the general electorate.

[The Doctor.]

292. Well, I was talking mostly about DU and how quickly dismissed they are

by Clinton supporters who'd rather not believe there are very good reasons for their support.

But let's apply the same rational to the real world;

"When even a thin majority of people gravitate around a candidate, especially a Democratic candidate, it's a bit dismissive, and even a little ignorant to assume 'there's no reason' for it simply because one can't see a valid reason.

I would think that when even such a bare majority supports a candidate, that's a good indication that there are reasons for that support."

Well?

[Jakes Progress]

299. I didn't say there was no reason for the support. In fact

that was the OP's premise. Your criteria also applies to the half that support Hillary. They are dismissed as fools and neocons and racists because the Obama supporters are dismissive "and even a little ignorant to assume there's no reason" simply because they don't see it. It's a double edged ax and it cuts both ways. I have no problem with supporting Barack. My problem is that those who have decided that Hillary should be the nominee are dismissed by the Barack supporters. Do you think that only Barack supporters should be listened to?

[The Doctor.]

301. Not at all. I thought that would be apparent.

Like I've said; There are good reasons to support Clinton. There are good reasons not to as well.

It cracks me up the way so many people here who've railed against the DLC are Clinton supporters.

When I go through the +/- columns for both candidates, I conclude that Obama is the better one. I don't blame others for weighing some of the plusses and minuses more heavily than I might... that's just personal preferences. I do find it rather unfortunate that some of what are indisputable 'wrongs' are completely ignored rather than merely acknowledged and reconciled.

[nichomachus]

122. Maybe because Obama is the only real Democrat in the race?

[Ronnie]

127. Thus it is proven.

[tavalon]

195. Only GDP

The rest of the site is quite unsullied. Try it, you might like it.

[hfojvt]

224. you forget that it was Edwards Underground for many weeks

although there have always been other contingents too

[Blue_In_AK]

4. Sparkly, you and I are DEFINITELY on the same page...

from beginning to end. Excellent rant.

[Hoof Hearted]

5. Spot on my dear.

[bhikkhu]

6. Just sayin' is fine.

As a teacher you probably recognize most of the varieties of bad behavior here. I think it would be different, myself, if we were not emerging from an eight year stint "in the corner". There is a certain amount of pent up frustration and anxiety over this election, and we happen to have two excellent candidates. Here you will primarily hear about the excellence of Obama, as he is the front runner, but there are also excellent posts (by Bigtree, for example) about Hillary.

A disciplined eye toward selective reading, and it should be clear that the tide has turned and we as a party have a good long run ahead of us.

[Sparkly]

12. "Bad behavior" is one thing; Faulty thinking is another. nt

[bhikkhu]

34. But this is, after all, an forum for anonymous posters.

Or a forum for anonymous screen names, to be more belittling.

On the one hand you get excellent material and analysis - better than you might find anywhere else, as sincerity, truth and the labors of insight are not always marketable properties.

On the other hand, individuals are free to speak, behave and act in ways they might never in person. Even responsible and intelligent posters can have bad days, and where better to vent frustrations without consequence? I always keep in mind that internet forums are something of a social experiment, and the cultural constraints that build up to regulate other types of communication have not yet developed.

Here you find the best of thought, and the "gut" of most things, at the very moment of generation.

[Sparkly]

42. I don't see it that way.

To me, it's just a bunch of people typing, really. :shrug:

[bhikkhu]

56. A bunch of people speaking

free from all of the usual societal reward-and-punishment type of controls. Without a great deal of elaboration, it brings out the best and the worst of people in a manner we are unlikely to experience anywhere else.

I think the representation of Obama's base of support here may suffer disproportionately as it is more youthful and less seasoned in the exercise of self-discipline and "respect prior to necessity".

[The Doctor.]

120. So supporting Obama is based on "Faulty thinking"? Sorry dear, but that's simply ignorant.

Unless you were talking about something else?

You see, most people here will be happy to explain their reasons if asked. It seems sad that any DUer would assume no such reasons exist.

If this is all you have to go by;

It's enough to be convinced in your gut -- so convinced that you're infuriated. "Here's your evidence (insert cherry-picked half-truth here)!" "Here's what matters (insert absurd distraction of the day here)!" "And if you aren't buying that, you're supporting this (insert exploitation of tragic story, shocking photograph, or other emotional appeal here)!" "We're on the side of truth, peace, justice, and all that's right; YOU are therefore on the side of lies, war, injustice, and all that's wrong!"

-Then you have either managed to miss all of the real reasons, or you have dismissed them out-of-hand without any critical thought.

I do not make up my mind on a whim, and to be told my thinking is "wrong" by someone who doesn't even know my thinking is an insult to both of us.

If you really want to know why I quite legitimately prefer Obama, you can certainly ask and I will do my level best to explain them. If, on the other hand, you do not want to believe there are legitimate reasons, then no matter how rational, realistic, or sound my reasoning is, you will only hear what you've described above.

In that case, the 'faulty thinking' is not mine.

[druidity33]

178. Doctor

you speak reason and sense.

The OP frustrates me because as one who researches everything to death, i am opinionated. I do my homework. I don't jump in on an argument until i've read/seen the facts... unless it's a pile on and unfair.

Despite their smaller numbers, i have noticed way more hurtful comments coming from the HRC supporters here. BHO supporters are full of snark, but don't seem as vicious and appear to be willing to listen more often.

As a Kucinich, then Edwards and now probably Obama supporter... i've been spending more time at the start of the Baseball season than i have listening to pundits or posting here. It's healthier for me...

Go Red Sox!

:)

[The Doctor.]

189. Then you'll appreciate this thread;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

I was a Kucinich/Edwards/Obama supporter in that order too. I'm not terrible opposed to Clinton, I just did plenty of homework and I have very good reason to support him.

Unfortunately, Sparkly will not respond here or there... it is simply more important to believe that there are no reasons to support Obama.


Obama will take a bloodbath to the Republicans this year, then maybe we'll get our chance to give this country back to 'We The People'.

Meanwhile; Go Sox!

:patriot:

[Jakes Progress]

277. I don't read it that way.

You say that there are more hurtful comments coming from HRC supporters. I see comments such as "I don't think Obama can really carry out his agenda" from HRC supporters. Obama supporters take that as vile and nasty. Not expressing full trust and belief in Barack is by definition heinous. From the Obama supporters I hear Hillary called every vile name immaginable. Not snarky but borderline stalkworthy. You want a couple of dozen examples?

[The Doctor.]

293. No. I, and I assume druidity33 are referring SPECIFICALLY to our support being called

"Blind Faith".

Saying "I don't think Obama can really carry out his agenda" doesn't rise to that level of dismissiveness.

[The Doctor.]

298. Case in point, handily delivered by a long-time DUer;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5793971&mesg_id=5820371

THAT'S what I'm talking about. See what I mean?

[sandnsea]

7. Why don't you consider the possibility that you're dead wrong

How about that? And how about you further consider the possibility that some of your heroes are just as big of "politicians" as they come. In other words, you don't get to the top of the General heap without learning to play a bit of politics. And why don't you further consider that some of the people who don't believe Clinton or Obama are just "politicians" might be right. And then consider your post is part of the problem, not the solution.

Sorry Edwards didn't catch fire. And you might want to further consider that he's the biggest "politician" of them all.

[goldcanyonaz]

8. *gasp*

[Sparkly]

10. Great example. You've pegged me as an Edwards supporter.

:eyes:

Amazing.

[sandnsea]

14. Sour Grapes Supporters

The ones whose candidate didn't win is always the ones who just can't understand why anybody sees anything differently than they do. It's usually Edwards' supporters. Occasionally Biden or Richardson. But it's always some sore loser who posts this shit and I'm as sick of it as you are of those who see a huge difference between Clinton and Obama.

[Sparkly]

15. Sorry I'm not a peg that fits into whatever hole that is.

:shrug:

[jillan]

17. Why are you so angry all of the time?

[ruggerson]

26. that's exactly what I want to know

[QC]

80. I've often wondered about that one too.

It's not easy to be one of the two or three most relentlessly nasty posters on a site this size, so when someone does it I can't help but wonder what's going on.

[sandnsea]

37. Sounds like you and the OP are angry

I'm not angry.

:shrug:

[Sparkly]

40. ?

:shrug:

[ruggerson]

43. Well then everyone else is wrong

and you're right.

(and I know you can see this, because we're on defcon, which is why I took the opportunity to guide you to a safer place. I don't want you to keel over on your keyboard with spittle hanging out of your mouth.)

[mrbluto]

205. Bullcrap tactic

Your post is a bullcrap tactic.

Injecting this "I'm sorry you're so angry" crap into a discussion is disrespectful.

I'm not allowed to mention where I see it often, but anyone who recognizes that tactic and finds it nauseating knows it, where it tends to come from, and what sort of poison it is.

[hfojvt]

226. Did you miss post #17 where she was accused of being angry?

Although perhaps post #14 with the "sour grapes supporters" was the started.

[Auntie Bush]

91. Because they have sand and sea foam in her mouth, ears, and eyes.

That tends to make one quite angry so at least they have an excuse.
See how understanding I am?

[Clintonista2]

133. I would like to know that too

[Two Americas]

64. you are proving her point

In your mean-spirited attempts at refuting the OP's point, you are reinforcing and illustrating it.

[Catchawave]

102. "usually Edwards supporters" ?

Still banging on them as hard as ever, I remember your smackdowns when he was still running. :shrug:

I see a huge difference between Clinton and Obama too. One's the shark, the other, the bait....I'm going with the shark....:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[livingmadness]

21. Calling someone divisive and nasty

because they happen to disagree with the OP does not put you outside of the 'problem' sorry.

[ruggerson]

24. the history of this poster belies your remarks

[livingmadness]

51. IMO - fundamental attribution error. N/T

[mtnsnake]

128. Let me second that emotion!

:thumbsup:

[DemVet]

73. Yeah, right.

And why don't you further consider that some of the people who don't believe Clinton or Obama are just "politicians" might be right.

So Obama is not a typical politician, huh?

BULLSHIT!

[druidity33]

203. well

he's not "typical"...

but he is a Politician.

[NashVegas]

93. Attack Attack Attack

There's a contest to determine who will be the nominee; it won't be decided by competing opinions on Democratic Underground.

[spooky3]

101. because (a) she's right and (b) AFAIK, she was NOT an Edwards supporter

but if she were, what possible difference does that make? The truth of what someone says is not dependent on your presumptions about the motivations of that person. Sparkly or any of the rest of us could be an ax murderer and still be correct.

Why is it so difficult for you to find something in the content of her message to refute? Whenever I see posts like this on DU where people pile on by speculating about motives, it's clear they have conceded the points the OP has made, but they just don't like being wrong. Otherwise, they would have addressed the points in dispute.

[emilyg]

237. You're one of the prime polluters on DU.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

11. Bravo

well done. :)

Of course this will change absolutely nothing here, but you should know that many of the adults here on both sides read this, understood it, absorbed it and totally agree with it.

[Sparkly]

16. Thanks, ruggerson.

:hug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. And others believe, in the immortal words of Jim Hightower,

that there's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow line and dead armadillos.

There ARE very distinct differences between the candidates - anyone who tries to walk that yellow line is fooling himself.

As the "Empire Strikes Barack" points out, this primary is a battle for the soul of the party, between the populists and the DLC, and the DLC has embraced the dark side.

[Kaleko]

139. Agreed. And it's not just a battle for the soul of the party

but for the consciousness that will dominate discourse (and therefore events) in the entire world.

This is a huge opportunity we have here for the "underdogs" to strike a massive blow to the fork-tongued representatives of the status quo.

[Jakes Progress]

278. I wish that those

with posts like this could see how jejune it sounds. I hope you keep your transcendent optimism but with some measure of solid earth reasoning to get you through these years. I'm no cynic, but battling for the soul of all mankind talk only makes Obama's campaign seem more unreal to most people. I mean that's what Jesus was supposed to have done.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. Sparkly, you deserve a HUGE CAKE with real buttercream frosting for this.

[Sparkly]

25. shucks

:hug:

[Political Heretic]

19. It's been Obama Underground since it became obvious that he is the presumptive nominee.

Some of us want to move on to the general, but Clinton is too powerful of a candidate for us to be able to do that without either her blessing or her hand being forced by super delegates. Oh my god, did you see that I just complimented the other candidate there? Clinton is too powerful and too big of a political force to just be "put away." That doesn't mean she has a path to the nomination, and it doesn't mean she is the better candidate. But it does mean she can hang around until she decides to end it or it is decided for her by super delegates.

Now, if roles were reversed and Clinton had won the most states, won the most pledged delegates, won the most popular vote and raised the most money I personally believe Obama is a powerful enough candidate that he too would be in a similar position of being able to stay in the race if he wanted to until the very end or until superdelegates ended it.

But for a lot of us, every criteria needed to pick a nominee has already been met and we believe that every day this nomination process drags on is a day that hurts us in the general. Thus, a lot of us are ready to focus on the general.

The candiate who has:
-most pledged delegates
-most states
-most popular vote
-most money

is the nominee. And I'm ready, if not desparate to start turning attention toward JOHN MCCAIN.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. Just a reminder

I understand your chomping at the bit, but entire states still have not voted. If you are ready to turn attention to McCain, just do so. The only thing stopping you is you. I spend alot of time wondering why those who have already voted and consider it over are not going after McCain, it is a mystery to me. If your Primary is over and you still are focused on the Primary race, understand your voice in that is past, and focus on the general. Feel free.

[Political Heretic]

152. Entire states normally do not vote before we have a nominee.

Why is this suddenly an issue THIS YEAR?

[NashVegas]

97. Thus Spaketh a Member Joined Dec 13th 2007

Who it will be expected is far more invested in promoting their candidate than they are in promoting the DU community.

[Political Heretic]

153. I'm more interested in winning the white house than I am in an internet board.

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

187. That's Great

If Barack wins and you get to personally move into the White House, good for you!

The rest of us, this is more likely the place we'll be having conversations with other Democrats, though.

[Political Heretic]

221. I'd rather be having those conversations with a democrat in the white house.

:shrug:

[sybylla]

175. Yeah, that's logical. Since when does longevity imply credibility?

Your logic is a little fucked up considering the number of long time Dems who've been tombstoned for not playing fair on DU during the primary. There is one in particular who just last week got into some serious hot water for posting that Sen. Obama is secretly a Muslim.

If we ALL strove for a little more logic and a lot less arrogance this place would be far less stressful.

[NashVegas]

190. You're Missing the Point

A new member has less investment in the community and more likely to use it as a dog uses a fire hydrant. That's what it comes down to in most newbie / oldbie flame wars. The OP was a relatively thoughtful rant about Obama supporters trashing our community.

[sybylla]

202. And you're making an unfounded blanket assumption

that I, as a long time DUer, find highly offensive and just the kind of pointless personal attack strong supporters of one camp use to stir up crap with the other camp.

Not only are your remarks terribly uncalled for but only likely to contribute to the negative atmosphere the OP so "thoughtfully" ranted about. HTF is anyone's longevity germane to discussion of democratic politics here - the kind of discussion the OP longed for?

I never cease to be amazed that those who bitch most about the "atmosphere" on DU are the ones most likely to be found contributing indirectly if not directly to the pollution.

[NashVegas]

263. *Yawns*

[Political Heretic]

222. All you need to do is take a look a post history instead of just join date.

That's how to judge the character of a member.

[mrbluto]

209. You forgot an important factor.

Namely:

- most likely to win the GE.

Do you really think that states that have gone to one or the other candidate in the primaries are actually going to go to the democrats in the GE?

Do you think it is possible that some eventual republican voters have crossed the line to vote in democratic primaries just to mess with our nominating process?

How do we take these possibilities into account?

[Political Heretic]

223. We don't. We defer to the popular process.

Cases can be made for or against the electability of both candidates with equal evidence - all of it anecdotal.

In the face of such a non-quantitative tie, the actual quantitative measurements that have always been in place and have always been the basis for determining a nominee should continue to be what determines the nominee. Anything else, means the process doesn't matter, those who participate in the process don't matter, thus why should they be bothered to come out and vote AT ALL? If the party elder's and party "analysts" know so much better than the rest of us who should be the nominee, then I guess they should just pick the nominee every time and save ordinary people the trouble of thinking that the party actually gives a fuck about them.

If hillary clinton was leading in delegates I would be sad that my guy was losing, but AT LEAST I'd have comfort in knowing that the rules weren't changed and the process wasn't circumvented by a bunch of elitists who think we're too stupid to know what we're doing. I'm be bummed, but I'd suck it up and cast my vote for the democrat in November.

What makes me furious is that the idea that somehow there should be other considerations besides the outcome of the popular process, such as people's subjective opinions, guesses, little hunches and speculations about who might be better against who when NOONE KNOWS ANY OF THAT FOR SURE AND BOTH CANDIDATES HAVE PLUSES AND MINUSES.

[PoliticalAmazon]

20. Please reconsider. We need your voice....

...I understand that it may be difficult at times here, but supporters of both candidates contribute to it. I don't feel it is accurate to call this an obama site, but then that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and assholes.

Anyway, please reconsider. But if you do go, you will be missed.

Here's a story that may seem random, but it has a purpose...

I once had a Chesapeake Bay Retriever named "Moses." If you've ever seen a chessie enter the water, you know how he got his name. He was the best dog I ever knew. I never believed that some dogs were smart, but he made me a believer. He was loyal, dedicated, protective, and funny. He made up his own games. He was by my side as I recovered from a hip surgery.

Moses was a big (though lean) boy: 100 pounds. With him, it wasn't the years, it was the mileage. He was robust with a capital "R." He would retrieve until the thrower stopped. At that point he would find something, even a rock, to roll off the edge of our deck that dropped out over a steep creek that went into a seasonal creek, chase it down, bring it up, and do it again.

So his hips gave out. We did all the measures available, short of hip surgery (he was 10 years old at the time). Finally, it came the day we had to take him in to the vet's to put him to sleep.

Always before, when we would take him into the vet's office, he would be worried, hang back, etc. This time, he hobbled as fast as he could in front of us.

I was there in the room when they did the injection. I held his face, looked him in the eyes, and said "Remember me, Moses. I'll remember you. I'll look for you on the other side, and you look for me."

Well, I don't think this primary and GE are going to be a death experience, but they may be a near-death experience.

So if you really have to go, I hope to run into you again on the other side of this traumatic election cycle. I'll look for you, and I hope I haven't scared you so bad with my aggressive posts that you run from me when you see me coming :)

[Sparkly]

23. Oh no, I'm not saying I'm going!!

I hope that didn't sound like some big farewell.

Just disenchanted, and finding no purpose here really.

[PoliticalAmazon]

39. That's good news! Don't know how old you are, but I've been....

...involved in politics since birth. Really. My Mom worked with the unions and took me to my first union meeting when I was 6 weeks old.

Anyway, this is, by far, the worst Democratic primary I've EVER experienced. I blame Hillary for going so Rove/Bush negative. It's just defiled the entire primary. AND our party.

And it's gone on way too long. As it drags on, on message boards (not just this one), posters are worn out. They've posted the same arguments over and over again, and have very little patience for their candidate's opponent's posters who they think aren't seeing things clearly.

Message boards are experiencing lots of personal attacks on other posters. I know of one board that had a strong rule about no personal attacks which they've greatly relaxed because of the circumstances.

So I'm glad you're going to stay. Try to be patient with us, because we are like the kids in the backseat of the car, with the Old Lady yelling at the Old Man for freaking MILES and MILES, and at this point we just want to know "ARE WE THERE YET?!" We are a tad cranky, to say the least.

[Sparkly]

44. "Do you kids want me to stop this car?!?"

Haha! Thanks for your post. :hug:

[PoliticalAmazon]

48. Actually, if you can, I'd recommend it. This car trip is becoming a train wreck...

...and I'd just as soon we are all safe before it happens.

[livingmadness]

50. I definitely agree

It is really important to contextualize what is happening here and on other boards :)

[Bluenorthwest]

92. You blame Hillary?

What about the gay baiting revivla tour last fall in which Republican operatives attacked gay people openly at Obama's events? Rovian religious wedge crap, targeted not at the Republicans or even at the Democratic rivals, but at everyday Americans.
I guess some Rovian viciousness is okie-doke if it helps Obama, eh? We call that situational ethics, or wearing blinders, or selective vision, or simply delusion.
I assume that Obama supporters have no problems with gay bashing, baiting and the use of religion as a wedge to divide our Party. You post just proves it again. Rovian indeed. The most divisive candidate I have ever seen is Obama. The most religionist Democrat I have ever seen is Obama. The only Democrat I have ever seen use open attacks on any minority at his official events is Obama. I guess when my own family was the target, it got my attention. No apology has been issued and no promise that such minority bashing will not be used in the future have been made.
But yeah, that is not Rovian or divisive. Hypocrisy is the worst.

[emilyg]

214. I'm relieved that you are not going.

I agree with your op.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

22. Most of the Clinton supporters prob. left here when it was said ALL supporters were racists

I would highly doubt that a person who was a huge racist would find this a great site to hang out on.

It was several people who posted it too - not just one person.

[October]

170. Explain yourself, please

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Are you saying that Hillary's supporters were called racist and that's why they left? And are you further saying that huge racist types wouldn't feel comfortable at DU?

[pecwae]

265. And it hasn't stopped.

[baldguy]

27. Funny thing about election - there are winners & then there are losers.

No use crying just 'cause your candidate loses.

[Sparkly]

30. Funny thing about posts - there are people who read them & then there are people who don't.

:eyes:

[ruggerson]

33. touche

[housewolf]

68. Interesting thing is... you never know who read and who didn't

When I've looked at "views" vs "replies"counts, it seems like any post only gets about 1 reply per 10 views. So you really never know who read any post and what the vast majority thinks/feels about it.

Always interesting to think about.

[LWolf]

109. Remember that in November, lol. n/t

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. GOBAMA!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

:hide:

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. AOL Forums, now that brings back "memories" and not necessarily pleasant

ones

Those so-called forums were so poorly moderated it wasn't even funny, and fully contaminated with the worst of the seventeen percenters

Morons, your husb was nice

[Sparkly]

32. Exercises in futility, weren't they?

I can't believe I ever tried to reason with people there. I could have spent that time and energy sticking pins into my toenails or something -- same effect.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. One name comes to mind in particular

LoneLawyer... libertarian to the hilt... and chicken-hawk par excellance

He was dismissive of me... doubly so since I was against this damn war from word go but hubby was deployed with the fleet

I even offered to get him to the recruiter... he had a heart condition.... he could not serve.

I don't know if that was the case or not, but I called him on his willingness to support OTHER people dying for his cheap gas

I wonder what is he doing after McCain admitted to my crazy conspiracy theory ....

:-)

I know, denying he even said it

I don't know why I still remember his bizarre arguments.... perhaps because they were that bizarre

[Sparkly]

47. My nemesis was USA4GWB

Also LettyB something or other and LadyMac1957. Argh!!! Can't even stand thinking of them now. :mad:

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. A LadyMac, we probably played together in some threads

:-)

She wasn't as bizarre as Lone though... I mean I am talking off the deep end bizarre... and yes that is saying much

[ruggerson]

35. very early on

weren't they called "newsrooms"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. YEP, and were based on the USENET engine

god I am dating myself

:-)

Back then I played mostly in the Role Playing Game ones... damn I missed the days when discussing the internal politics of a GAME was important... and actually mattered.

[ruggerson]

46. after AOL I moved on to Efnet

now that was the wild wild west. And rightwingers everywhere.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. They are almost everywhere

after I found DU... I should venture outside for business reasons, just don't feel like it

[NashVegas]

146. Jeremy Nixon Used to Call It

"aol's usenet-like interface" IIRC.

[Maddy McCall]

31. Kick and Recommend.

Good post.

[TK421]

36. I want this fucking thing to be over with, too....so we can focus on McSame

because I think we all know what the Repub slime-machine can spew out before the GE

[Sparkly]

38. We can focus on him right now! nt

[TK421]

49. We're not...and that is what's really bothering me, I suppose

when I see some of these posts, it is pure bullshit meant to divide...but I can see through it as well as you can, and sure, some of us can take our jabs out here and there. I WANT us against them, and I'm confident that "us" will win this one.

[housewolf]

54. Sparkly, consider this

I can't help but think there is "something else" going on (this is fairly esoteric, so I'll see if I can put my thoughts into words that are comprehensible): DU is just a small microcosm of a phenomenon that's going on in our society/culture at large.

Everywhere you look, when to public policy issues and politics, the same phenomenon exists - exactly as you describe it: polarization, beliefs/opinions are tightly held and righteousness reigns. Much as we decried GWB when he declared "If you're not with us, you're against us", I think, somehow, that he gaave voice to something percolating up within the unconscious psyche of virtually all Americans to some degree or another (or, alternately, perhaps he subconsciously "programmed" it into the unconscious of our society - we were all in some sort of group trance after 9/11 so perhaps we were receptive to a statement like that).

We lefties/progressives are deeply bonded together in so many ways that the primary way we can express this sense of division is over our choice of a leader.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think there is something of an unconscious "state" or "trance" going on. It is causing us to be utterly irrational, oblivious to facts, deeply protective of what we perceive of as "mine", and deeply hostile to whoever or whatever seems to threaten what we are holding dear (be it our candidate, our beliefs or our opinions). We have seen this so clearly in the RW'ers for some years ... why would we think we were immune to the same "disease"?

I don't know if any of this makes any sense whatsoever. I realize that I'm stepping into somewhat uncharted territory by suggesting that perhaps we are not as capable of making thoughtful, rational, independent self-aware choices as we would like to think that we are. Instead, I am suggesting that some/many of us (not all, but some/many) have been experiencing the "diviciveness virus" and are basically unable to control themselves.

It's terribly hard on the rest of us. I HOPE it will be better once we actually have a Dem Party nominee... but it's just as possible that it's gonna remain ugly until the "diviciveness virus" runs it's course and rationality returns, as it will in time.

Till then, we all need a bunch of :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug: :grouphug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. The power of propaganda

that is what you are talking about

Candidates are now fully familiar with the techniques and some folks are very susceptible to them, and some are not...

I am proud to say that at least this year I have not fallen under anybody's spells, and I and my brother in law partially blame the mind games of basic. They might have shielded us somewhat... though not guaranteed to protect folks...

But what you are talking about is not esoteric, but the power of personalities and leaders...

[Bluebear]

65. Just again some nonsense was levelled at me

that Clinton is "my girl" because of my "copious posts"...and what enthusiats don't realize is that many of us progressives are not enamored with either choice remaining. It happens that Clinton supporters have certainly been more civil to me here, but I like you, are under neither's "spell".

[JuniperLea]

306. What I find very interesting...

Is that several of my favorite people here never fell under the "spell." And those that did would still offer up a hug if I disagreed with them and reminded them that "the end is near" and I hope we fall back into the good old times.

I relish the days when I was called a Hillbot and a Obamaniac in response to the same post... that tells me I was telling it like it is.

:hug:

I'm glad you're here, Bluebear.

[Raejeanowl]

182. To Extrapolate On That A Little

I've (seriously) wondered if we as Dems are behaving this way, having experienced the last eight years, out of some kind of political form of PTSD.

I won't burden anyone with the specs of my bunkum theories, but think about the behaviors most shocking and upsetting to see in fellow Dems, and it begins to appeal as a possible explanation.

[bridgit]

55. Oh hell Yes! Months have gone by, and I suppose in some appearance of 'equality'...

BHO supporters have been enabled to cast thee most spurious shit in every conceivable direction so as to render this site a BHO Site by default. Not faulting the mods, they've plenty of shit to sift through. But as is often the case...guidence flows from above ergo: BHO site

I'm tired of being race baited. I'm tired of having my life experiences called BS i.e the AA's in my life discolored instead as though they do not exist IRL, in my life!! And white people claiming that no one has "a scintilla" of knowledge about the travails beset upon minorities. I am weary of the never-ending tripe, diversion, and lies beset upon all of us by the so-called (or claimed) 'loyal' opposition. When their task is to be loyal to no one but themselves.

The chasm is spread. And the yawn is engulfing us all, and imo taking us down along with it.

[Two Americas]

58. thanks

I think you speak for many of us, perhaps most of the membership at DU, including all of those who stay quiet or have wandered off (or run for their lives lol.)

Well said. Thanks.

[Guaranteed]

59. Well...yeah. He IS our nominee. nt

[Bluebear]

60. This forum reminds me of the old Yahoo message boards now.

:shudder:

[grantcart]

63. "Neither will change politics"

Obama already has.

By simply changing the basic algebra on how campaigns are funded he has taken the importance of big spenders out of the equation.

But you have already written the final act. He is a politician and it is impossible to change the way things are done.

Your personal viewpoint obscures the facts. The facts are that campaigns will never be funded nor will they be perceived the same way again.

That is a fact. "It seems we don't need no stinkin' facts around here these days"> Your the one that has allowed personal ideological point of view to obscure the fact.

Having established that politics will change why don't we give him the benefit of the doubt and see what else might be changed.

Of course you will be able to bury him later.

There is a certain nihilism in progressive politics which wants to stand in perpetual judgement and discount any advance even if it

was an advance that no one thought possible 6 months ago. In this case no one thought that 1.5 million people would put in $ 100 each and completely move the big spenders out of the power equation.


Ironically this is the same condition Rev. Wright suffers from and Obama talked about in his Philadelphia speech. By clinging to to certain sancrosanct conclusions that 'neither will change politics' they actually make it more difficult to actualize the change that was in fact possible all along.


Politics has been completely changed, it will never be thought of the same way and it will never be funded the same way and yes that is a fact.

[JANdad]

72. Do you have a life outside of DU

As per your profile: 9584 posts since Jan 5th, 2008...:shrug:

On one point you and I agree: "Politics has been completely changed, it will never be thought of the same way and it will never be funded the same way and yes that is a fact."

In this "American Idol" age...policy positions make no difference to the "average" voter...

[mrbluto]

213. I agree with the dynamic you describe.

By clinging to to certain sacrosanct conclusions that 'neither will change politics' they actually make it more difficult to actualize the change that was in fact possible all along.

I agree with what you point out there.

But I apply that understanding to the idea of a brokered convention.

A brokered convention is the way out of this trap. (A trap I might add that has Karl Rove chortling with glee)

As it stands now we could be discarding the votes and discouraging energy of a significant number of people who would have otherwise voted for and worked for a Democratic victory. Considering the way the last few general elections have gone I don't think we can afford to sacrifice 5%, or even 1%, of the electorate. You may think "well they can't pull a fast one like they did last time', but so did many people in 2004.

Before people go on about how "undemocratic" it is I'll remind them that all the pledged delegates will be there because of primary contests, and the super delegates will be vetted members of the democratic party who will have been subject to elections and scrutiny of their fellow party members.

They will in fact be representative.

If the nominee is the result of a brokered convention it has an excellent chance of being representative of the collective, unified will of the democratic electorate.

So long as there is sufficient transparency to the deliberations.

We should start considering how to make sure that even if the rooms are "smoke-filled rooms" that we know what the hell goes on in them, or at least know that people we trust were in them.

btw - in interests of disclosure I'll note that I believe Edwards to be the best choice in this scenario. His paper work is still valid, he's vetted, he'd be a strong candidate, he a rare minimally divisive candidate who still appears to have a spine and a good chance of winning versus McCaine. With him as nominee we'd leave many Republican votes with no gender or race-based excuses not to REPUDIATE the Bush years.

[KaptBunnyPants]

66. Wow, that's such a reasonable analysis.

I agree with everything you just wrote, from top to bottom. Poor Hillary is so unfairly maligned by those hateful freepers at DU. She is of course acting in a manner morally equivalent to Obama and not knifing the Party in the back at all. Just because her own super-delegate supporters are now saying that she's hurting the Party as they jump ship, there is no reason to believe she's gone Lieberman. Sure, you may hear what sounds like her race baiting about Obama's scary black church, with it's scary black minister who believes all those scary black things. Or see her using what appear to be traditional right wing smears such as calling liberals elite, latte drinking, pansies; but this is a campaign that is as least the moral equal of that scoundrel Obama, who had the nerve to run during Hillary's campaign when he obviously should have waited until 2016. Of course, her surrogates may use robocalls to disenfranchise poor black women (who Hillary loves), or praise fox news as the most fair news station to turn to, but there is nothing amiss at all with her campaign. And Hillary may attack the Democratic Congress, asking them whose side their on because they don't support the gas tax holiday which economists have universally panned as a give away to big oil, but that's just another inconvenient detail which detracts from the glorious picture of beauty that is our Goddess of Peace. And just because she hangs out with the Fox news crowd, or has her attack dog Blumenthal spamming the media with solid journalism from world net daily and newsmax about Obama being a crypto-islamocommunist (totally true), or that her former henchman George is taking his debate questions from Sean Hannity, there's no reason to suspect their loyalties might not be what we thought they were. It's all those unfair, hysterical Obama supporters, who just never gave poor Hillary a chance. But the worst thing is now Obama's scumbag supporters are demanding that she quit just because she is insurmountably behind and only a backroom deal at the convention could see her take the nomination now. I just want to get out front blaming them now for losing the election, just so I can say I told you so afterward and in 2012.

[Adelante]

71. Well done, KaptBunnyPants nt

[burythehatchet]

162. I figuratively nominate this reply.

[FrenchieCat]

254. KaptBunnyPants, excellent post!

and exactly correct. Those who don't see the problem, aren't looking.

[Jakes Progress]

279. It always seem that when you have a lot of replies

you will get a poster who proves the OP's point for him. KaptBunnyPants has just done that. It is such a perfect example of the puerile, kneejerk reaction that the OP mentions. A perfect blend of bringing up every silly hot button for attack in one incoherent paragraph. It's point being only to serve as fodder to the thougtless "right-ons" that will make Kapt feel so good. Exactly the kind of post that a troll would plant to generate as much antagonism from those with other points of view as possible. An perfect example of the cliche that the OP describes.

[KaptBunnyPants]

285. Pathetic. You don't even put of a pretense of addressing my argument.

Aren't you embarrassed accusing me of making an empty argument when you make no argument whatsoever? Nothing but a sweeping generalization cutely identifying me as a troll in order to justify ignoring me, even though I gave a list of substantial and proven examples of Hillary Clinton's campaign engaging in slimy, unmatched, and unethical behavior. Oh voter fraud, just a silly hot button issue that the NC Attorney General is investigating because he likes wasting tax payer money. Blatantly coordinating with Fox news, Scaife, and the rest of the filth with overtly racist attacks - why every candidate does it! You have no answers, because you know I'm right, and you simply don't care. Well, Jakes Progress, why don't you just hit that little button that says ignore next to my name, because I'm just going to keep saying the truth, and you're just going to keep not liking it. But I'm not here to talk to Hillary supporters. I have your lot on ignore because you refuse to back up your arguments with facts and resort to personal attacks as a crutch for being wrong by the merits. And that is where you are going, because not only do you support a candidate who has demonstrated her ill will toward the Democratic Party, you have demonstrated that you are either too lazy to try to make an argument or simply incapable of doing so.

[Jakes Progress]

291. The truth...You can't handle the truth. :-)

We get it. You don't like Hillary. And you don't like people who don't like Hillary. But you did not make an argument. You posted a lot of your opinions about things. It was not a list of substantial and proven anything. You just rehashed the all time fave list of Hillary Haters everywhere. Your use of multiple adjectives does not make them them any more accurate. I don't use ignore, but I guess you won't know that since you are ignoring me now. The fan of the great includer refuses to talk to people who don't support you. That is what I meant by the post proving the point of the OP. You attack me rather than what I said. You called me pathetic and lazy and then accused me of resorting to personal attacks. This is the patter that I see. It does occur on both sides, as Sparkly mentioned, but I see it more from the O camp. You call those who disagree with you names and accuse them of making personal attacks. And the definition of a personal attack to this kind of poster is one that disagrees with them. So if I say, your post is an example of runaway divisiveness, I am personally attacking you. But when you call me a lazy, pathetic, non-thinker, that is just solid argument.

Again. You prove Sparkly right.

[donheld]

67. Hopefully, I'm just going to consider this an Obama-"supporting" site until January 20, 2017.

:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:


I was tempted to start a copy cat thread with this but...

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

69. I could not agree more with every word you have written

Eloquently stated, as well.

I don't spend as much time here anymore, barely post, and rarely open more than a few threads. Just drop in to see what bug du jour is up DU's collective ass before going other places for news and information.

Ah well. Glad to know there are some here who share your point of view, and glad to support it myself.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cornermouse]

74. If I see Obama on the tv simply talking I think he has the potential to make

a decent president and if he had more experience and had left a voting trail I would probably be on board the Obama train. But then again, contrary to what some on DU apparently believe, I think Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were good presidents.

However, after watching Obama and getting a favorable impression, I come to DU and find the Obama supporters running around trying to beat the neutral and the Hillary supporters into submission or drive them away and immediately put up my defenses and start to resist. I think that a lot of the Hillary supporters have been successfully driven off and that is why you don't see many Hillary supporters running around trying to beat up the opposition; or maybe it's because we're supposedly older than Obama's supporters.

Whatever. I think psychiatrists and psychologists would have a field day in DU at this point in time.

[Orsino]

75. Don't blame the site, or the moderators, for Obama's apparent majority of support here.

I think Skinner et al. do a fine job of maintaining neutral ground. It's the slightly progressive orientation of members that gives Obama the edge here.

It ain't the site; it's the people who inhabit it.

[cornermouse]

84. One little problem.

No matter how many times you say it or how hard you want it to be true, Obama is not progressive. Never has been. Never will be. And in order to believe Obama you would also have to see Liebermann as a loyal middle of the road democrat. There are no progressives left in the race. You all drove them out back at the beginning of the primary.

[Orsino]

86. That's not what I said, though, is it?

I believe that Obama appears more progressive. That perception, I believe, is the reason he may be more popular here.

I am on record as calling both Obama and Clinton conservative. Please don't confuse me with other posters.

[cornermouse]

90. Okay. Sorry.

[Arugula Latte]

110. That DLC affiliation Hillary has isn't helping her image as a progressive, you know.

Just sayin'.

[cornermouse]

130. I have never been under the illusion that Hillary is

progressive. As I said earlier, there are no progressives left in the race. You guys drove them all out back at the beginning.

Got that?

[Arugula Latte]

198. Oh it was "you guys," huh?

Well, I was originally for Edwards, so I don't quite get that. Also I haven't even had a chance to vote, yet. So I don't really know what you're talking about.

I do know that Obama is far, far preferable to Ms. Obliteration, however.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. The Progressives here

Are considering both candidates as compromises. Obama is not a Progressive at all. Sorry.

[lumberjack_jeff]

200. I think the collective consciousness colors the application of the rules

There have been a great many extremely pejorative, bigoted and nasty rants posted in the last three months that would ordinarily not be tolerated. When they get alerted, sometimes they are deleted, sometimes not, but the behavior of the offender is almost always excused.

The most common excuse is "Only an idiot would allow the vitriol from an anonymous poster (they call this the BobDole syndrome, sometimes you can only live with yourself by dissociation - thinking of what you say and write in the third person) to color their opinions of their preferred candidate".

And no, I won't provide links. A) it's against the rules and B) if you couldn't see how inappropriate they were when they got 100 recommends, you won't see it now.

[Orsino]

261. The vitriol's on both sides...

...perhaps even split according to the popularity of the candidates who supposedly "benefit." And the hundred recommends were also the work of the ordinary, non-moderating members.

[dcindian]

76. so you see a difference but choose not to perceive it as a moral issue.

Fine but don't poo poo others who do believe we all make a choice. Hillary has made a choice of dirty politics. Obama has not.

I choose to see it as a moral issue.

You choose to see DU as Obama underground.

seems to me you hold a group of anonymous posters more responsible for their acts then the politicians you vote for.

[Adelante]

77. "Sparkly must be a Clinton supporter! I KNEW IT!"

:P

Nah, I know you're not a Clinton supporter or you would say so. I know you're not an Obama supporter or you would also have said so.

This is the part of your OP I agree with:

How things have changed. It seems we don't need no stinkin' facts around here these days! Assert the accepted thing, and facts aren't required -- you're golden. You've heard and read all you need to, and know, just know, that's all! It's enough to be convinced in your gut -- so convinced that you're infuriated. "Here's your evidence (insert cherry-picked half-truth here)!" "Here's what matters (insert absurd distraction of the day here)!" "And if you aren't buying that, you're supporting this (insert exploitation of tragic story, shocking photograph, or other emotional appeal here)!" "We're on the side of truth, peace, justice, and all that's right; YOU are therefore on the side of lies, war, injustice, and all that's wrong!" In short, yeah -- it IS becoming the parallel of Freeperville.

We've lost, I hope only for the time being, the sense of responsibility to DU, to our party and to each other that dictated we back up our arguments with facts. It worries and saddens me. My hope is that once this stage of the primary ends, (God, please let it end), the DU management can address the quality of discussion here, the link only OPS, with no text and no verification of opinion. The DU archives have turned to shit and that happened in the course of this primary season.

As far as being neutral in the race, I'm sure many DUers are, but they're not a group largely represented in GDP, they are in other DU forums, because it's a primary and we're down to two. It truly is one side or the other. If you could bring all those neutral people into GDP, it could balance out the stark, either here or there nature of the discussion, but they're probably as turned off as you are and won't set foot in here until there is a GE going on.

But I don't think you can make "neutral" into a candidate and this is a race between candidates. The time will come. We will be on the same page. But this race has gone on so long we've entered into a stuck zone. We're stuck. You don't want to be stuck, but you are, too. It's all on hold until it's not.

I decided to just live with it and I do that by Ignoring almost everybody for the time being. I made the choice for Obama and I'm about Obama winning. I already know what policies and positions they each hold. I don't need DU to read the news. And everything had become so entirely repetitive I feel sure I could have gone away for three months, come back and seen the same OPs I saw for the first year of this primary season.

I can't help it if the choice I made turns off Clinton supporters and causes them to go elsewhere when they feel outnumbered or overwhelmed. I don't accept that Obama supporters are any more nasty or devious than Clinton supporters, whether it's directed against a candidate or the supporters. There are just more Obama supporters at this time on DU. But there are bound to be when Clinton supporters go off to find their own echo chambers, and from what little I've seen, DU ain't got nothing on them when it comes to downright nasty.

Though I may agree with you that the discussion in GDP may be too candidate-centric for comfort of all, I don't see the way around it as long as the primaries go on and on and on.

One point I disagree with you about is the matter of changing politics. Yes, yes, they are both politicians. But changing politics is an issue in this race. Changing politics is one of the reasons for me supporting who I support. Do I think every change I want will happen? No, I don't. Will I be disappointed? Yes, most definitely. But I'm in it to change politics, because those small increments you speak of have gotten so very small, they are hardly visible, and if the political system is blocked, which I believe it to be, it's got to be unblocked. This is a cause.

At least Obama wants to do that. Whether he succeeds or to what extent he succeeds, we'll see. But I picked my candidate for 2008 the same way I picked my candidate for 2004, by asking myself who will best lead the country on its way out of the mess we're in. There's nothing to be neutral about, for me. But I don't expect you or anybody else to agree with me. And I don't expect anybody who disagrees with me to shut up on my account.

My advice for the next few weeks: Put every asshole you see, regardless of candidate, on Ignore. You will be surprised at what a thinking group of DUers you end up with.

[frickaline]

78. On thing I've noticed .....

People here in general (no matter which candidate they support) have an inability to discuss any criticism of their candidate, even if its 100% factual. There is some kind of emotional, reactive posting taking place in response to a lot of threads/thread titles and not a lot of stopping, thinking, and judging the merits.

These kinds of knee-jerk responses can get our party into a lot of trouble. Blind support is never a good thing. Just because you support a candidate, doesn't mean you have to like everything about them. And it doesn't mean you should ever stop questioning them. Make them earn your support again for tomorrow.

[Carni]

79. Fantastic rant!

BTW when did you argue with the right winged morans on AOL?

I also used to waste my time arguing with those wing nut jerks back in the day!
(we may know each other in another board life lol)

Great rant and I am going to follow suit and just try to stay the hell away from this forum until the dust settles...even though I vowed that I would not,
I too find myself getting involved in the nasty mud slinging around DU lately.

You offer a lot of sane, logical advice...great post!

[Barack_America]

81. If all I knew of these campaigns were DU, I might feel the same.

Volunteering for the campaigns gives a whole new perspective on this.

I look for who is reaching out to my community, which is predominantly college kids and African Americans.

I look for who is inspiring these groups to become reengaged in politics.

If I sound defensive or even bitchy on these boards it's because I don't want to see this undone...unjustly, IMO.

[Hepburn]

82. This is going to be an Obama supporting site AFTER the convention, too.

He is gonna be the nominee!

[Beausoir]

83. Thank you!

[Zambero]

87. I think you've hit the nail right on the head!

We'd better all work to unite against McCain, as this election could be our last chance to turn things around for the better. We will ahve control of Congress, but that will be of limited advanage with an obstuctionist in the White House. At this time personalities matter very little when there is a GOP presidential nominee who aims to continue a disastrous policy in Iraq and institutionalize the policies of the current administration. I look forward to a united party, the sooner the better!

[MattNC]

88. What do some of you expect?

It's the Internet. Most Internet users are white and more affluent than the rest of the population - one of Obama's stronger groups. His supporters also tend to be more politically active than Hillary's. So, again, why are some of you surprised DU would trend toward Obama?

[The Magistrate]

95. Excellent Rant, Ma'am!

[stray cat]

96. I've seen 'freeper attitudes and characteristics" from both supporters

obviously jerks are not limited to any political party or persuasion. Its too bad because much of DU has the potential to be productive but often it is not used that way.

[livetohike]

98. I think what I'm reading in your post is the support for Obama

is disappointing to you? If DUers can't discuss and promote their candidate openly here, where is the proper forum?

I've been voting since 1972. If we had the Internet then, perhaps we could have changed the politics that followed all those decades. It's a good thing going here at DU. If the majority of people posting here are for Obama, that's the way it is. So what??

I am happy for all of the DUers who have come to the table - young and old. I am grateful we have this web site to hash things out and I believe we will be united in the Fall.

I was a Kucinich supporter, btw who is now for Obama because I believe he represents the future of this country.

[NashVegas]

108. Discussing and Supporting a Candidate is a Far Cry From Attacking Other Candidates' Supporters

On a community bulletin board, for no other reason than they support a different candidate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

230. There are very few posts discussing support for Obama and the reasons why.

It is 99% hate for Hillary, and the reasons why.

[DeepModem Mom]

99. Great post -- thank you! I support Obama, but have a real problem with...

media coverage of Clinton, and I post articles about both subjects (I rarely enter the candidate war with opinion posts). I was the sponsor of the DU Obama Group, voted for Obama, and am a maxed-out contributor to his campaign. But I don't think that's considered sufficient support because I don't consider him or his campaign perfect, I don't hate Hillary, and I think Democrats in the remaining primaries should have a chance to vote and see their candidates up close (in my state, the primary generated lots of excitement, and a validation of both candidates as possible Presidents).

My immediate family and close friends are split between Obama and Hillary. I respect these folks, their choice and both their candidates.

[derby378]

100. For what it's worth, I was in the Bill Richardson camp...

I really hated to see Bill drop out, but I could understand why he did. But I still needed to choose a side, and from what I've seen about Obama, he has a tenacity and depth that I find refreshing in a potential President.

Still, I'm with you on this one. Whether we as a part choose Hillary or Barack, the goal is the same: Deny McCain the White House.

:hi:

[dogday]

103. Love The Rant, would like to see more of this coming from our members.

I don't have a candidate because of what you are have aptly described above... I will support and vote for whatever candidate will be our nominee.. I don't believe in slamming Dems in any sense of the word regardless of the circumstances, we need a Democrat in the White House and a majority in the House and Senate to really effect change in this country....

[WeDidIt]

104. That's bull n/t

[pnwmom]

105. I agree, 1000%. Excellent post, Sparkly. K & R.

[Tab]

106. I'm with you

I can't stand the site anymore.

It's got nothing to do with the running of it (meaing: admins) but solely with the apparent hatred running out there. I'm not even sure what brings it on. I'll support Obama; he's not my first choice, but I'm not going at him with the hatred I see people go at Hillary with.

Mostly I just skulk off to the cooking & baking group where Husb2 and I talk about cooking and leave politics behind. I don't have the emotional energy for the discussions on the front page.

[DemExpat]

107. I totally support this message, Sparkly.

This is the most divisive and hostile I have ever seen DU, and it is very disappointing to this Hillary supporter.

DemEx

[LWolf]

111. Thank you. n/t

[ClericJohnPreston]

112. Excellent post Sparkly

Leave it to the group your post singles out for their single-mindedness to, of course, react in knee-jerk fashion.

What ever happened to thinking? When did that go out of vogue? Oh yes, I remember, after Iowa when neophyte voters with no experience determined they knew what was best for everyone. Since a mob and cult mentality pressed its will on the collective forcing all speech along tightly constrained grounds of fundamentalistic GOOD Vs. Evil.

How ridiculous this phenomena is. It will go the way of all temporary madness Sparkly. It will come to a crashing end in the not too distant future. Thankfully. Hopefully it will signal the end of the detestable oxymoron of the conservative liberal and allow the LEFT WING it's proper dominance.

[NashVegas]

113. Wonderful Post Miss Sparkly

I also remember what life was like when there were no internet communities dedicated for the left and what it was like to be part of a small group of independent thinkers in the middle of an obnoxious herd of right-wingers who would say anything to tear down anyone who contradicted them.

I discovered DU and Smirking Chimp both around the same time, and Chimp had crappy servers and not-so-great architecture, so ... here I am.

I hate that there are people here who are more committed to promoting their candidate and don't care that they're destroying the community. Little Lee Atwaters with keyboards.

[man4allcats]

114. Ah the sweet voice of reason...

Your post epitomizes my own feelings. I work with a number of misguided though intelligent Republicans (actually, it's not necessarily an oxymoron) who were surprised to hear me say neither Clinton nor Obama would have been my choice as Democratic presidential nominee. For me, the only real hat in the race belonged to Dennis Kucinich, but we all know what came of that. That said, I will vote for which ever member of the remaining rather Undynamic Duo gets the nomination. And why would I do that? Because:

"MY page is about getting SOME progress -- or at least just stopping the bleeding -- on the environment, healthcare, the Iraq Fiasco, energy, corporate welfare, reproductive rights, the Constitution, the entire takeover of the judicial system, our nation's place in the world, the complete selling out of our economy, etc. etc. etc..."

Thanks for a really great post! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


edited for typo - I hate it when that happens.

[jonestonesusa]

115. Good post - I agree to a point, but not entirely.

I appreciate your effort to put the internal dispute among Dems in perspective.

I do not see it as a waste of time, though, just because I think that when it comes to the presidency, the person, their staff and surrogates, and their biographies and character traits matter. Politicians can be more or less effective depending on their personality, their political instincts, their ability to build coalitions as well as appeal to their base.

For me, the conversation has been far from a waste of time. On this site some of the good posters link to information about the campaign, information about issues of concern, etc. I was inspired to read HC's biography by Bernstein and to finish up on Obama's autobiography. I have kept track of polling data due to good posts by Obama and Clinton supporters.

I agree that the board right now clearly leans Obama, but that says something too. I do think that the struggle between the DLC wing of the Democratic party and the liberal wing has been long in coming and necessary, and at this point the DLC wing has a 20-year track record that we can consider and evaluate. For myself, an Obama supporter and kind of a liberal outlier in the Dem party, I want to see bolder solutions that are required by the scale of our national problems, greater inclusion, and more vibrant dialogue in the party, and I think we can get to that through the debate. Plus, I think that black voters needed to speak up among Dems because the critical need for an urban agenda and progressive reform in general requires African Americans to be more active within the party.

So, overall, while I find some of the HC/BO debate to be illogical, overly emotional, etc., I believe it's a fight that that Dems and the country needed to have. The role of level headed persons like yourselves is critical too - keep the faith.

[Preston120]

116. We don't need Fair Weather Friends- Don't come back.

[Cameron27]

118. Who's we?

You don't know DU very well if think that Sparkly's a fairweather friend.

[NashVegas]

147. In This Case

Someone who signed on in Feb 08 and thinks they speak for everyone - like approx 1/4 of the Obama supporters here.

[Cameron27]

119. Amen

:applause:

K&r

[Overseas]

121. There are TONS OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS

Standing by her even as she and Bill and their team use every dirty smear in the book to damage Obama. They don't realize how many of us held out some respect for her until Bill and others on her team started throwing around racial dimensions. The HRC team kept the Wright issue alive after Obama's beautiful speech could have put it to rest until the Right Wing wackos raised it again. They say it's just politics BUT wingnut wacko channels waving Wright around are very different from the distinguished Clinton Dynasty and their loyal Democratic supporters using it to bash a great fellow Democrat. I was holding out respect for HRC until her team started slinging their desperate slimeballs. Obama was attacking McCain much more than HRC was, trying to suggest that both Democratic candidates show us how they would fight McCain and that's what we wanted. But no, HRC decided to clobber BHO by whatever means necessary and damn the party. I have been so disappointed.

[Zhade]

253. Her well-documented, undeniable lies didn't help her either.

NT!

[Jakes Progress]

280. More proof of the Sparkly's position.

We need to thank these posters for adding the examples right here in the thread so that we don't have to put links to other places.

[indimuse]

123. Excellent post!

Thanks!

[obamaguy2]

124. That's becuase clinton is McCain light

[Omaha Steve]

125. I've been on DU since before Obama was a Senator

I'm not a newbie that came here to pump up a candidate. I just happen to support Senator Obama. Before that it was John Edwards. I will vote in November for the candidate that is nominated. No stay home I'm acting like a spoiled child from me. The DU is a good cross section of views. Yes we have reds in white clothing. I will be here as long as there is a DU regardless of who is running at any particular point in time.

[joeybee12]

126. Yesterday, this place jumped the shark with the doctored video...

...amazing, even that liar Kos didn't run with it, and there must have been 42,000 threads about it. Bots were praying for Hilary to use the n word, and the best they got was a doctored video of surrogate saying it, but, of course, he didn't say it.

[The Doctor.]

131. And perhaps you noticed how fast it was quashed. People can be rational around here.

Personally, I didn't even see it because just the immediate comments that shot it down told me not to bother. To make the claim that more than a handful of eager and impulsive posters took it seriously for more than the 20 minutes it lived and died here is silly.

People get carried away, I wouldn't fault anyone who fell for something that stupid right away. If, OTOH, they kept on it for a day... then they're just being idiots.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. There is still a journal about it on the front page

So it is not that quashed. It is still fodder to some.

[The Doctor.]

137. Are you trying to convince us you're not that bright? LOOK at the Journal, doofus;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5791494

Puh-leeze pay attention there trigger.

[Jakes Progress]

281. I saw that thread, but

I have also seen the video referred to on other threads since then, usually saying how typical such behavior is for the Hillary crowd. It's still floats like the shit it is.

[mtnsnake]

129. Sparkly

You have always been one of my favorite posters and this is one more reason why. :thumbsup:

[PatSeg]

132. Excellent post

One of the few I've read from GDP in a long time. I am one of the "tepid" folks right now, but I really miss the intelligent, informative discussions we used to have here. I'm looking forward to the general election, when we can focus our energy on beating the republican candidate instead of devouring one another.

Until then, I'm on the sidelines. Life is too short.

Big Rec for this!

[dlkinc0329]

134. MAIN STREAM MEDIA + INTERNET = Obama Supporters

I (Hillary supporter and proud) feel so left out this time
around because I feel the entire MEDIA forums are for Obama. I
am a Black female and (proud) and the rhetoric around Obama
makes me sick. He has divided the country (African Americans
are threatening those of us who don't support him. I equate
his candidacy with those young African Americans who tried to
ridicule Rosa Parks and called her all kind of names. I
personally think this is the type of people who are hateful to
their elders and don't care anything about us - so why should
we care anything about Mr Obama and his constituents. I would
and could never vote for anyone like him. If he is the nominee
then I will never vote again (it doesn't really matter). Main
stream median and the internet (DU, MEDIA MATTERS, CROOKS AND
LIARS, etc) have forced this man on the nation and I feel we
will be sorry.  The threats and other tactics that have been
sanctioned by Mr Obama - is what this nation has always been
and his change and hope is a make believe.

[DFW]

135. Sparkly--I feel like running the famous soundtrack song from "Lilies of the Field"

Or, as we say in Texas...."like she said!"

[onehandle]

138. Good post. I'm surprised this got voted up to the front page.

A welcome break from the usual pabulum.

[JDwho]

141. MY page is about defeating McCain, as well. You said it, Sparkly.

I've read DU for years, not as an official member, but as a Democrat in a red state looking for a bit of comfort. You know, some of the "like-mindedness" so difficult to find in my state, even among the intelligent and rational. I only recently joined, to comment.
You have articulated every frustration and exasperation I feel about DU, as it now stands. I take breaks from DU now, too.
What you have written does make a difference in my little world. Just so you know.

I do have a preference between the candidates. It will not be earth-shattering and I will not wither and die if he/she does not win. There are many people just getting "into" politics at this time. Perhaps, the all to often comment of, "I will stay at home and not vote at all, if Obama isn't the nominee", is a reflection of that. Like you, I will vote Democrat whomever the nominee, because what people don't understand is, if they don't give their best effort in the Democratic process (not the Obama process), we will see our country in war, indefinitely.
You mentioned you're a teacher. Consider the lesson learned by this DUer. Also...Please forgive my run-on sentences, as well as any other grammatical errors.
I heard once, somewhere, that we (the people) should never stop debating and exchanging new ideas. I look forward to the day when that type of conversation takes place. Your comment, Sparkly, qualifies.

[greguganus]

142. After the convention, it will STILL be an Obama site!! GoBama!! n/t

[tgnyc]

143. kick

[canadian_is_cold]

144. Regretfully, I'm going to consider this poster a Clinton supporting whiner,

until after the convention.

[Adelante]

165. I will defend Sparkly

She is no Clinton supporter and she never, ever whines.

[truedelphi]

145. For over six months now, I have asked people to explain to me how Hillary is a Dem

The only response that I have gotten is from two people who both PM'ed me with the news clippings of Richard Nixon's health care package - a package which is identical to Hillary's!! (Their commentaries, not mine!)

She is a neo con, who although labeling herself an "environmentalist" sets up a mantra of Iran's EVIL EVIL EVIl and our need to nuke that nation.

Just how environmental is a nuclear war??

She has no, I repeat that, NO!, interest in the democratic processes. Should she manage TO SECURE THE NOMINATION IT WILL BE DUE TO THE "superdelegates" a group whose existence is due to the leadership of the DNC fearing the unwashed masses' ability to elect the nominee on their own.

She is buddies with slime ball, Ed Rendell, who has been outed for letting superdelegates in the state of PA know that they will carry water for Clinton, or their city, suburb or town will be without PA monies.

But Hey there is a "D" after her name, so I guess I should love her.

[NashVegas]

149. To Someone With a Kucinich Avatar, Of Course She's Evil Personified

However, it's as Sparkly said. There is very little substantial difference between the two candidates' voting records and issues. If anything, HC's voting record is slightly to the left of BO's.

If you don't believe Obama is the corporations' candidate as much as HC, you haven't been paying attention. Really what it comes down to, more than anything, is simply whichever you personally favor; the only thing you get by turning DU into a cesspool is ...?

[truedelphi]

156. Just on the issue of Iran - there is a big difference between the candidates.

Senator Clinton is drumming up hysteria against the nation of Iran. And one result of drumming up hysteria against Iran could, in the end, be Thermocnuclear War.

But does she care?? No because she needs needs needs to prove that she is as tough as a man.
(Some women, like Barbara Boxer, don't need to endorse war all the time, to show how strong and capable they are.)

Whereas Obama has said that diplomacy includes talking with the leaders of nations we are in disagreement with.

[mnhtnbb]

148. Sparkly, I'm in NC and still haven't decided whether I'll vote in the primary Tuesday

and if I do, for whom, or whether to skip the POTUS category.

I'm not thrilled with either Obama or Hillary (and I was an Edwards supporter). Catch me at any time on any day and I might think I'm voting Obama or might think I'm voting Hillary. I'm 57 and I've NEVER
felt so unenthused about the opportunity to vote in a primary. You'd think I would be thrilled
since NC doesn't usually have any say.

I don't, though, have any doubt that I'll vote Dem in the general. I will NOT vote McCain or leave
the category blank. I'm not optimistic, though, that it will make any difference because I think
McCain can beat either Hillary or Obama. I think we haven't seen nuthin' yet in the way of dirty politics.

Very depressing, isn't it?

[barack the house]

150. If Hillary had more activist support I would accept that. It is their free right.

The site is not an Obama site it just happens he has more support among people here. Just the way it goes, really.

[LittleClarkie]

151. Whatever. I see posts from both sides on the front page.

It's only one sided if you've picked a side. Then it only LOOKS one sided.

The Hillary supporters are as much at fault for the lack of Democratic unity as the Obama supporters.

I've seen elements on BOTH sides act quite grotesquely.

Consider it what you want. I get sick of the passive agressive "I guess this is an Obama site" followed by the attacks on Obama. (not really your m.o., but I'M just sayin'.

I get sick of the nasty comments from either side when they've happened to won a primary. Graciousness does not abound.

Unity is a two way street.

[happycozy]

154. Dream on...

After the convention, if Clinton gets the nomination, there might be a dozen people left here, but hopefully we could get on the same page.

As an African American it seems to me that the Clintons have tried everything--even garnering assistance from Republicans--to tear down the first viable AA candidate. If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama, there is no way in hell I'm voting for her. I'm either voting for Cynthia McKinney, or I'm staying home.

And I'm sure there are some women who feel the same way about Obama--although Obama didn't steal the election from Clinton, and he hasn't pit men against women, where the Clinton campaign has pit blacks against whites and blacks against Hispanics. But whatever--we're all entitled to our opinion.

My point is that the Democrats have gotten themselves into a royal clusterf*ck, and McCain will be our 44th president.

So if your point in this post is that after the convention (and general election) DU won't have Obama supporters, you're right. Instead it'll be full of deflated democrats who lost another election.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

161. I'm new around here...

and certainly wouldn't want to stick around if there wasn't a diversity of opinion.

That being said, I just saw Clinton giving a stump speech in NC from the bed
of a red pick-up truck...I kid you not. Any self respecting redneck should be
duly insulted. Can you imagine Obama stooping to such a stunt? Her campaign
has become a cliche void of all dignity. I've had eight awful, angst filled years
of that garbage and I want dignity and authenticity restored to government.

Hope you stick around...

[NashVegas]

186. "He Hasn't Pit Men Against Women"

He's pit woman against woman. From January through March there was a relentless stream of "good feminists / smart women don't vote for Hillary Clinton" essays all over the internet.

He's pit African-American against African-American. AA superdelegates - congressman, in particular, have been threatened with primary challenges for their support of Clinton.

He hasn't pit men against women? I guess that depends on your opinion of Jesse Jackson Jr. going on nat'l TV and accusing Hillary of manipulating the nation with false tears. That was bad enough, but when you add in the rest of his insane rant - "Hillary didn't cry about Katrina" - what was that all about, my friend?

Barack Obama has run the most divisive campaign within the Democratic party in almost 30 years.

If Hillary Clinton should wind up as the nominee, it won't be because she stole anything from anyone. It will be because her opponent has shown he's not up for the gig.

[happycozy]

266. Dream on part 2

If Hillary Clinton should wind up as the nominee, it won't be because she stole anything from anyone.

Quit living in a fantasy world. Clinton CANNOT catch up with Obama in pledged delegates. The only way she gets the nomination is through SDs. If the person who has more pledged delegates loses the nomination, it will look like it was stolen. It doesn't really matter that Clinton supporters believe the decision was far. She can't win the general with just her supporters alone.

As far as your other rants, they're a matter of opinion, and I'm not going to change your opinion, so we'll agree to disagree.

[hell-bent]

303. The real question is how he won those pledged delegates.

The caucus process is not a very democratic way of selecting a nominee. The closed primary with a secret ballot is the only true democratic method of voting for a nominee. The Texas caucuses demonstrated that fact very well. A candidate receives the plurality of votes in a state, and the opponent with less votes is awarded more delegates through the caucus wrangling? WTF? Democracy in action? The winner takes all is the only true method of selecting the nominee. I hope the SDs see the error of this system.

[depakid]

155. "thoughtless politics"

Some of this can be attributed to the fact that a lot of Obama's most ardent support here comes from young people and/or political neophytes who don't have much experience analyzing politics. Some (you can tell from language use) have grown up on internet, so to speak- and lacking a responsible mass media, imitate that sort of discourse.

At times, their posts can be clever, but more often they're shallow and lacking any deeper understanding of substance on the various issues.

For instance, I was called a "mewing Hillary zombie" for attempting to correct a misstatement about the bankuptcy bill. LOL. I didn't know zombies mewed, but I do know what a "poison pill provision" is- and have enough experience with the legislative process to know how bills get passed or blocked in America.

e.g. insert a clause regarding abortion protesters and watch Republicans have a fit.

This sort of deal is usually too subtle for "back/white good/evil" thinking, and so is easily dismissed as "mewing" when it doesn't seem to "support" their candidate or his or her record or statements on the issues.

That some of us are neutral and objective, think critically and and engage in honest analysis (with the same goal: NO MORE REPUBLICANS) is difficult for some to wrap their minds around.

Don't get me wrong, partisan zeal is not a "bad" thing, in and of itself, but it pays to recognize that it can lead to intellectual laziness and inaccurate perceptions.

Hence some of the commentary we read on these threads.

[JoFerret]

302. Accurate

And therein lies the tragedy of this whole debacle.

[georgecolombo]

157. Not Sure I See Your Point

Basically, a grass roots group of Democratic activist (i.e. the denizens here at DU) have generally -- but not unanimously -- begun to express a preference for Barack Obama. Is that somehow a problem? I respect the fact that you might not have decided on a candidate yet but that ought to not obligate others to remain neutral.

[blues90]

158. All three of these so called candidates can go to hell !

There is not one who is real and not one who will change a thing. They run on complete campaign lies and spins as always. Nothing will change.

If Edwards would have still been in the running then there would be no mud to sling.

[fascisthunter]

159. Most DUers Support Obama

So what should we do to make you feel better, throw false support towards Hillary?

"Most DUers support Obama... wahhhhh." Give me a break...


:nopity:

[mrbluto]

219. How about you try being rational?

I'm NOT a Hillary supporter and I'm still nauseated with the Obama Zealots around here.

The Obama Zealots have shown themselves to be flaming thugs.

Just imagine how they'd be up in arms if Edwards hadn't suspended?

Obama and Edwards would have been splitting the anti-Hillary vote and neither would have the plurality that Hillary would.

Obama Zealots should thank their lucky stars that Edwards suspended, he took a bullet for the benefit of the anti-hillary team if you think it through (or Obama refused to take one), but does he get any respect?

No. They still pound on him on the off-chance he's a contender in a brokered convention.

According to them he's only a smidge less evil than Darth Clinton and is barely a democrat.

To hear the words spouting out of the mouths of some Obama supporters here is like listening to a political version of MadLibs.

How do you construct one of these MadLibs?

Take any Republican rant, put blanks where there would be a Republican candidate, a Democratic figure, republican favored policies, and republican favored dog-whistle phrases. Leave the Republican smears and MSM tropes and Faux news canards as they stand.

How do most Obama supporters on DU play political MadLibs?

They fill in the blanks as follows:

Republican Candidate Blanks - fill-in Obama.

Democratic Figure Blanks - you are allowed some discretion for these.

Republican Favored Policies Blanks - if Obama supports them then fill in his policies, if a non-obama supporting figure supports them then insert a mangled, easily critiqued straw version.

Republican Favored Dog-whistle Phrases blanks - fill in Obama campaign dog-whistle phrases. You know, like "let it sink", it's a sentiment analog to being a Limbaugh "dittohead", but flipped around. (it also leaves room for the candidate to change his positions as needed since there are only forbidden ideas, none required other than devotion.)

Voila! Political MadLibs! Obama Zealot style!

[TheDonkey]

241. DU is OBAMA COUNTRY. Hillbots, Shillbots, and Hillary supporters spare us the whine

thanks

[hell-bent]

304. You are living up to your user name!

[burythehatchet]

160. Missives From Camp Hopeless

[mrbluto]

220. Camp Longshot

Isn't it the rascals from Camp Hopeless that steal the flag from Camp Longshot as a prank every general election?

Guess who the majority of Camp Longshot is supporting this primary.

Hint: He's still making inspiring speeches.

[uberblonde]

163. K&R

:kick:

[rainlillie]

164. People are turned off by Hilary's tactics...

and rightfully so. If I wanted to vote for a republican, I would vote for John McCain. It's weird to many that people who complained about the smear tactics used against Kerry are mum, when Hilary is doing the same thing to Obama. Someone told me Hilary is the best choice, I Said yes...for Republicans.

[Fearless]

166. It will be an Obama supporting site AFTER the convention as well.

[Skittles]

167. I hear you Sparkly

as someone who has never been impressed by either of our corporate-media selected "front runners", the extreme adoration of Obama an demonization of Clinton on DU has been sickening to witness :puke:

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beacool]

169. This IS an Obama board!!!!!!!

The total lack of respect for Hillary and her supporters is worse than one would expect at a RW site. Therefore, there aren't too many Hillary supporters left on this board. We'll see if they come back if Obama becomes the nominee.

[frylock]

171. lieberman and zell miller used to have a (D) appended to their name..

it still didn't make them Democrats. perhaps the reason this is perceived as an Obama board is because he's the only real Dem in the race.

[rainlillie]

172. Exactly!

..

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

231. On edit, she ain't perfect, but neither is he.

Neither, by a long shot.

[Julius Civitatus]

173. Great letter: that's why I left DU a few months ago

I'm glad to read your message, because I've been feeling very frustrated with DU for months, and had my suspicions I wasn't the only one.

This used to be a place to debate and fight against the overbearing GOP. Now it is a Democratic civil war, with a strike of nastiness that truly turned me off. GOP operatives must be really proud.

I DON'T CARE who ends up being the Democratic candidate; I will vote for him/her in November. Hillary or Obama, it doesn't matter to me: it's about turning things around and getting the corrupt regime out of the White House and start cleaning up this mess.

For about a year I have been peeking into DU every now and then just to see how's going. It's vicious, it's nasty, people are at each other's throats, and every time it seems to get worse and worse. If this continues, John McCain will waltz into the White House, while the Democratic circle firing squad continue this nonsense. This has to end.

[TheDonkey]

242. You left a few months ago?

:rofl:


Yes, you wrote that ON DU!!!

[Julius Civitatus]

267. Why is that so funny?

Wow, man! You "got" me. Your comeback was soooooo incredibly "clever". How old are you? Twelve?
Your astoundingly insipid reply to my post is the perfect example to what I was trying to say.

Yes, I used to post here on DU constantly. I used to check DU daily, and was posting almost daily for years. This website and its forums offered a sense of unity in the left against the Bush cabal during the very hard years of the neocon regime. This was a place where we could vent and find solace on the support and opinions of others, and we did it though very hard and painful times. Unfortunately, it's no longer like that. Now the rhetoric is as juvenile and witless as a food fight. I haven't posted a thing here for almost a year now, and now barely check the headlines at DU once a month, if at all.

Yesterday I checked DU for the first time in quite a while, and saw this thread. I replied to explain my agreement with the OP and show my support. It was my first post in a long, long time...

And then I got your mind-numbingly dumb reply, as if it somehow would discredit my words or opinions.

Well, to each its own. Your dumb post is another little example of how low the discourse has sunk at DU.

[Erin Elizabeth]

249. DU directly affects who wins the White House?

Wow, I had no idea it had gotten that powerful!

:rofl:

GMAB.

[Julius Civitatus]

268. Wow, now that's a straw-man if I saw one

Way to twist my words and stretch them out of context to oblivion.
You don't think what's going on in DU is an example of the Democratic food fight that's taking place all over the country? You don't think DU reflects that nastiness? You seriously believe that if Democrats continue this circular firing squad, John McCain won't waltz into the White House?

That's quite a delusive way of thinking.

[Jakes Progress]

282. Sometimes you just have to let the asses bray.

Their posts just reinforce what you and Sparkly had to say. No thought, just "fun" online. My guess is 16.

[trickyguy]

174. Newcomer here. But learned a lot so far. And the process is important to me.

Never been this involved in national politics. And I can pretty much ignore the nasty stuff.

And absorb what good there is to find at DU. Enough said. :dem:

[SleeplessinSoCal]

177. Does Hillary care about the passion for real change?

She is going to need to make a marvelous speech addressing new voters, young voters, disenfranchised, Clinton fatigue, anti-lobbyist, anti-war, core Democrats, that she isn't McCain-lite. Otherwise, this may be the only opportunity to correct the fatal course Bill Clinton et al set us on in 93/4.

[merci_me]

179. You speak for me!!

I use to stop by here 4 or 5 times a day. Now, maybe once every 4 or 5 days. If this had not been on the front page, I'd have missed it completely, since now, I go ONLY to LBN and my state forum (maybe) . But even LBN is easier read elsewhere. It's become depressing to see what this once great site has desoloved into.

I recently got a DU bumpersticker for my last contribution (which may well be my LAST) and I threw it away. This is no longer a sharing of ideas, it's a schoolyard bully site. So much so, that I read your post, but didn't even have the interest left to read the responses. No interested in wading through crap to get to a now rare thoughtful post.

Like you, I'm not thrilled, in fact less than not thrilled, by either candidate. I have a great senate candidate and am concentrating my efforts there.

[7horses]

180. Oh, ...

I thought DU was all Obama all the time.

[Raejeanowl]

181. Great Rant

I've many times contemplated about the same, for similar reasons, so who knows?

I especially like and agree with this excerpt:

Consider the possibility that some people actually ARE neutral -- enthused about both, tepid about both, cold about both -- and equally willing to vote for either. Consider the possibility that someone can come here completely neutral and sign off as a Clinton defender royally perturbed at Obama's "supporters" -- quotation marks because I think that's the intent, but not the effect. Whenever I take a break from DU, it seems worse when I come back (attribute to my perspective or the reality here).

Consider the possibility that both Clinton and Obama are politicians. Neither will change politics, and neither will continue the GOP agenda. Neither is running a squeaky clean campaign nor a crazy dirty one -- the campaigns are simply whatever is deemed likely to work best for the candidate. It's really NOT all that moralistic or emotional.

I've tried in every subtle way to try to hold this mirror up. I confess I'm a teacher, and tend to approach things didactically -- through polls, provocation, leading questions and comments (and facts, forgetting how little they can matter!) Lately, too often, I feel as I did years ago on that CNN forum and AOL -- the way I feel arguing with rightwingers. It's the same mob mentality of "truthiness" that cannot be reasoned with.

I hope you wander back. Rational thinkers are in short supply.

[IsItJustMe]

183. This is reportedly a left leaning blog. Now Obama. in my mind, is not liberal. But Hillary is the

antithesis. More than anything else, I think DU is anti-Republican. I have seen more posts referencing Faux news, Newsmax, and various other right wing media in the last year here, so for me, it's not all that hard to understand.

[JohnnyLib2]

184. K & R with gratitude.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :kick:

[lojasmo]

188. It'll be an obama supporting site after the convention too.

Them's the rules.

[MasonJar]

191. I totally agree with your post. I have not been to DU for 3 weeks

because it became a place where no matter what subject was being discussed some numbskull would start complaining about Hillary and off the post would go to all the good Obama and the mean old Hillary agenda. It was frustrating and actually quite off-putting. I am confident that DU has lost Obama some future votes. I am going to support whoever wins the nomination. I wanted Al Gore. I am now backing Hill, but I like Obama almost as much. It's his supporters that I can no longer contend with. Thanks for the rant. I may stay around or wait until after the convention to return; it depends on what I run into tonight. I am also not watching Keith for the time being; I'll be back there too, but not until the nominee is selected.

[NeonDog]

192. Do the math

The only way for HRC to win at this point is to destroy Obama or some other catostrophic event (which would get her the nomination anyway)....If Obama was trailing could you imagine the harping this site would get from Clinton supporters, if Obama remained in the race without a snowballs chance in hell catching her...

[paulk]

193. great post!

and plenty of examples of this -

"Such "debates" on DU these days are such an unproductive waste of energy among people who largely agree on issues. They seem like exercises in emotional catharsis of some sort. At best, they don't get us anywhere, and at worst, they make attaining the real goals more difficult."

right on this very thread.

[Major Hogwash]

194. Facts are facts, Obama is going to be the nominee.

Whether you post here or not.

So, why go away?

[The Doctor.]

196. Calling bullshit. You couldn't answer me upthread, here's proof you're being foolish;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

There are many very good reasons Obama's supporters are excited about him. Being ignorant of those reasons does not negate their reality.

"Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it's not there."

[Gman]

270. You're calling bullshit???

You say: "Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it's not there."

Jeezus, there's some pretty dumb people nowadays here on DU but that takes the cake. There's a whole lot of us that won't drink the Obama Koolaid while fainting with the vapors at his every word, no matter how nebulous and without form those words are.

DU used to be a place where you had damn well better have your facts together. What passes for facts these days is absolutely disgraceful for DU but standard for somewhere like Free Republic. That's the level this place has degraded to.

There are very few concrete reasons to support Obama and there are a great many not to support him, not the least of which is he's a junior Senator with 3 years seniority and 2 years of that were running for president. The list of reasons to not support Obama is seemingly endless.

Hopefully, the superdelegates will do their intended job and push Hillary over the top so we'll have a fighting chance to win in November. I drank the McGovern Koolaid just like the Obamabots have today. Losing 49 states wasn't easy to take in 1972. Losing at least 40 with Obama won't be any easier. In fact, I think that would be the worst thing that could happen to most of us.

[The Doctor.]

272. I was just telling people that there was ignorance like yours around here;

Read this and then reconsider that bullshit about "Drinking the kool-aid";
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

Here's an excerpt;

"I have very good reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, and anyone that tells me I don't is insulting my intelligence, and demonstrating their own ignorance."


Meanwhile you want the SDs to overturn the will of the people just because you believe your opinions are infinitely more valid than mine and the majority of others'.

Please go stick it up your ass.

Thanks,

Dr. E

[Gman]

296. Fuck the will of the people

and you too. It's absolutely criminal that a mob of hysterical idiots like you even have the right to vote and push this country and the world toward complete disaster.

[The Doctor.]

297. LMAO! So.... support for Obama = Global disaster.... RIGHT.

Thanks for putting yourself firmly, solidly, and totally in the "Complete fucking nutcase" category for me.

And thanks for a post I can whip out of my favorites to prove at any time that there are "complete fucking nutcases" like you around.

Just in case you decide to edit or get deleted, allow me to quote your post in full for posterity;

Fuck the will of the people
Posted by Gman

and you too. It's absolutely criminal that a mob of hysterical idiots like you even have the right to vote and push this country and the world toward complete disaster.

You're way off the deep-end cheesecake, and now I can prove it.

Thanks!

[PinkTiger]

197. Thanks, Sparky

You said everything I wish I knew how to say. I confess, I've been on the attack against those who dissed my candidate. As of right now, I'm done.
I'll be back in August, maybe.

[madmom]

199. Thank you Sparkly, for saying what a lot of us feel. I used to "fight" my SO

for the computer so I could check out DU, now I'm here maybe 1-2 times a week, mostly if I'm bored and have nothing else to do.I always thought our main objective was to get a dem in the white house, not tear each other apart over our difference of opinions.I've been a political junkie for a long time, but now because of this I'm really turning off to politics.I can't recall how many posts I've made saying we should be uniting against mccaine not fighting each other but I guess hind sight will be 20/20 and for all our sake it's not to late! :-(

[VotesForWomen]

201. yep; this is Obama Underground right now, and it's not reflecting well on Obama.

[TheDebbieDee]

204. You've been reading my mind, Sparkly! GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

K&R!

[natrat]

206. it's not like obama is the 2nd coming but clinton is so obviously repulsive

[Jakes Progress]

284. And you know that because MSM told you so.

[HuffleClaw]

207. there is plenty of support for the both of them so far as i can tell

its just that the obama side seems to be somewhat more rabid about it

[hans]

210. Hillary voted yes on the Iraq War Resolution. What else do

you need to know? The majority of DU members have been hair on fire angry about that vote and her defense of that vote for the past five years. What didn't you "get" about that anger?? Did you think these people were kidding? Or just talking to hear themselves talk?? How could you ever assume that there would be widespread support for Hillary's candidacy on this board?? How could you??

When people on DU thread after thread screamed their heads off in opposition to the idea of the Bush family dynasty, how could you have possibly thought DU members would be happy about a Clinton family dynasty?? Do you think we just talk to hear ourselves talk??

Here is the deal. On matters of princple, we mean what we say, and what we say matters. Hans

[JNelson6563]

211. I see you missed the 04 primaries.

I don't think things are any more wretched now than they were then, it's just gone on longer.

Don't despair, those who remain on DU will come together in the end because 99% of DUers are smart enough and clear seeing enough to know either of our candidates is infinitely better than McLame. Those who do not are not particularly dedicated to the cause in the first place so let 'em go and sit in their own poop and cry.

BTW, I share your sense, for the most part, of neutrality. While I do favor Obama somewhat I base that on the incredible reaction I get here in northern MI as a foot-soldier. After each big win for Obama the phone has rang like crazy with people calling wanting to join the local party, donate, volunteer and anything else they can do. N'ary a call after any Clinton win. Above all I am a foot-soldier in the trenches and whatever helps this cause I have invested heart and soul in is what I am for.

Cheers :toast:

Julie

[Buzz Clik]

212. My Ignore list suggests that there are about 40 foaming-at-the-mouth Clinton zealots still here.

There are at least twice that many who are Clinton zealots but don't foam at the mouth.

Do you also believe that the media in general and male pundits specifically hate Hillary and make sexist comments about her?

[madrchsod]

215. you still ignore?

it`s so much fun reading rants and raves......

[Buzz Clik]

234. When traffic gets heavy (as it will on Tuesday), DU opens the graves.

The living dead walk the land, and I'm treated to their screams, screeches, and tirades.

Once every two weeks or so is plenty.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. "ignore Clinton zealots"? Isn't that tool as much a DU anachronism as a buggy whip? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

235. Well, I can still read your posts.

:evilgrin:

[woundedkarma]

216. For some people....

it's been raining for so long that when the sun comes out, they refuse to believe it. Crowds of people tell them "look, the sun is SHINING" but they ignore them. After all, people are easily deceived.

Can you even imagine what it would be like if things were different? I can. A lot of other people can. Some of us even know what it looks like when we see it.

Some of us see the hints of it now, almost every day.

For once, stop looking at the world as if you've seen it all and nothing will ever change. Look up and imagine what a sunny day looks like even if the rain is coming down harder than you've ever felt it before.

[femrap]

217. Thx for a great post....

makes total sense. I still think that there are Paid Infiltrators on DU...here to 'divide and conquer.' But I can't prove it. But I did read an article that major PR firms, like Ogilvy, are making lots of money doing this for clients.

[TheDebbieDee]

243. I agree. There have to be paid operatives on this site.....

muck-raking, crap-weasel trolls whose purpose it is to wreak dissension on this board, and they're very good at their jobs.

[Jakes Progress]

286. I really hope the trolls are dominating DU because

I would hate to think there are that many truly stupid people. I prefer to think that most progressives are so earnest about their beliefs that they are easy prey to the kind of manipulation that the paid trolls carry out. We are way to much knee-jerk reaction and way too little thought and reflection. That we are passionate and committed is our blessing; that we are so easily troll baited is our curse.

[iamthebandfanman]

218. it tends to happen when clinton says things like

activists arent important and neither is grassroot campaigning.

seeing as most of us are just that...

[bjobotts]

225. I support Obama but can't stand his supporters. The vileness is overwhelming

Like they are trying to prove that you must reject Clinton more than support Obama. Neither are that progressive and certainly not the ideal candidates but the Hillary hate is overwhelming and the scum talk coming from so many Obama supporters Obama himself would reject.

[LVjinx]

227. Obama supporters are repugnant. They've managed to turn me totally against their candidate,

Even up to Super Tuesday I was totally excited about this election cycle. But I can't stand the constant race-baiting, distortion, quote invention out of thin air, and flat out lying coming from Obama's supporters. Maybe I'll come around, should he win the nomination. But I really doubt it at this point.

[GrimReefa]

256. Ok, so now you're going to help John McCain win

because you don't like Obama's supporters?

Supreme Court vacancies? Who cares?
4 more years of war in Iraq? Oh well.
A continuation of the economic and domestic policies that trample on the American people and favor the Super wealthy? Que sera, sera.

After all, some of those Obama suporters are mean.

Maybe it's time you took a vacation from politics for a month or two, and when you come back, perhaps you shall see the forest.

[iamthebandfanman]

264. funny, clinton and her supporters did the same to me

about a month ago.

oh how times they are a changin'


face it, obama just has more support now.

glad this is important to you now that your the MINORITY but it was fine to act that way when the number of supporters here was pretty even.

[lumberjack_jeff]

228. Thanks Sparkly, very well said. n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

233. K & R. Nicely written, thanks for posting this.

You really put the frustrations of many of us into a resonating essay. :loveya: :kick:

[TexanIndian]

236. May I add, this site is also a Hillary Haters' site

It wouldn't be so bad to support one candidate over another, but one would think that the support should roughly reflect the popular vote split (even ignoring Michigan and Florida, one would be hard pressed to argue that the support for Obama and Clinton is not within 5% of each other).

But, the opinions in this site is 95% pro-Obama and 5% pro-Clinton (more like 5% poor-Clinton-supporters trying to get their word in edgewise).

[kwenu]

238. Buck up friends. Hopefully you won't have to wait till the convention.

[palindrome]

239. I have noticed that DU has more Obama supporters percentage wise then most places i've been.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

245. Way, way more here than I see in real life.

[Razorblade01]

240. I Couldn't Agree With You More!

It's almost sickenig to hear the Obama gloaters! And to hear them tear about The Clintons,who IMHO are the Democratic Party's First family after the the Kennnedy's.
I love Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller and Ray Taliaferro. But OMG! Would you all three Talk show host PLEASE STOP! You have almost lost me as a listener! I have listened to Stephanie Miller and Ray since 1994!!! And Randi since I fist got on the Internet in 1999. I can't take it anymore!
God I will be glad to see someone win so we can stop hearing how horrible Hillary and Bill are!
We all know better!

[TwilightGardener]

244. You must not like democracy then. If there's more supporters, then there's more supporters.

Deal with it, or leave. Jesus.

[Razorblade01]

259. It's NOT The Fact that There are More supporters!

It's the fact that you have all ruined Hilllary Clintions chances at ever becoming President. Because of the hatred. Guess Rove was correct about negative campaigning working.

[Binka]

271. Oh Noes11111 DU has ruined Hillary's presidential run? Are you series???

That is HUGH. You might want to stop casting asparagus. Folks might think you are a moran.

[tammywammy]

283. OH NOES!!!

[George II]

246. Fine...come back after the convention and whine some more, okay?

[DesertRat]

247. Very well said!

:kick:

[Baby Snooks]

248. The Last Democrat in the White House

?

April 24, 2008


The last Democrat we had in the White House was Jimmy Carter. The Clintons are the new breed along with the Bushes. Republicrats.

[Razorblade01]

255. ....And I Would Bet A Dollar To A Donut...

that YOU were a Clinton supporter long before it was "In" to hate them. Am I correct?

[Jakes Progress]

288. Either that or

she was 5 when he was elected.

[Zhade]

251. The media lying about Gore isn't even close to clinton herself lying about nonexistent sniper fire.

Sorry, no sale - your goods are damaged.

[Razorblade01]

258. Yeah..and that issue was so much MORE Important...

about the Fact that She would be a better leader. Obama hasn't exactly been on the up on up either about his associations..now has he? TRUTH BE TOLD,BOTH HIllary and Obama would be far better than any Republican. So why the hatred?

[Major Hogwash]

290. I don't think you understand just how BIG that lie was, considering it was told during a war in Iraq

That she voted for, has supported for over 5 years, and has refused to apologize for, and then told us in December -

"I'm not going to apologize for my vote for the IWR, and if you don't like it, vote for someone else."

So, we did.
By the millions.


Hillary lost the military vote by telling that lie about "ducking sniper fire".
You may not know that, but there is no one in the active service that is going to vote for someone who makes shit up, while they are being shot at on a daily basis in Iraq.
She also probably lost more than 90% of the veteran's vote by telling that lie.

And she didn't apologize for telling that lie, either.
She only said that she "got off the script" that was written in her book during that speech.
But, she tried to make it sound like it was no big deal, and then Bubba went out and flat out lied his ass off about it, and said "the media went after her like she robbed a bank".
In a way, she did rob the soldiers - it's called "stolen honor", when someone tries to portray themself as someone who has served in a combat role when they weren't even there.

It was a much bigger lie that you realize because Hillary has never been under sniper fire, ever, anywhere.
It didn't just not happen in Bosnia, it never happened to her, anywhere.
It was a huge lie that would have been used like a club this fall if she was running against John McCain, who, whether you like him or not, did serve in the military in a combat role.

[krkaufman]

257. This is where you lost me.

Then it was DU -- "Are you typing to morons again?" "These are definitely not morons!" I insisted. There was so much wit, knowledge and depth here. Very little knee-jerk automatisms, misinformation or rigidity -- well, just enough to keep it interesting -- and NO overall mob mentality. (Several opposing mobs, perhaps, and I'm sure I joined in with some of those at different times.) Certainly not a leftwing version of Freeperville, because DUers deal in facts. And FACTS are the rails that keep us on course.

How things have changed.

[BootinUp]

262. lol

in support of Sparkly's post I would say there have been times when I had a similar view though. Primary seasons are not one of them though.

[Fedja]

269. I'm just going to consider this an Obama-"supporting" country until after the election.

eom

[Lord Helmet]

287. that'll work out pretty good since he's going to be the nominee

[hell-bent]

305. Yes, when pigs fly!

It will be all over for him after tomorrow's voting. She is going to whip his ass in both states. Then, the SDs will see what a loser he would be in the GE.

[Jakes Progress]

289. Just like the movie "Being Jakes Progess"

You went in that little door, slid down the hole, and spent time in my head.

Thank you for saying that an experienced DU'er feels that same way that this newbie does. I read for a couple of years before signing on, but have started spending more time at icanhascheezburger.com. It makes my day much more pleasant.

I was an Edwards supporter (actually Gore, but then...) and when I had to pick a new candidate, I was initially attracted to Obama's message, but his supporters were so unlike anything he said, that I came to believe that his message was flawed. Even his own supporters didn't behave that way. I have a lot of bones to pick with Hillary, but mostly I want a Democrat in the white house. I don't think Barack can win. If he gets the nomination, I will vote for him. I mean, I voted for Dukakis and Kerry, so why not?


I wish DU lived up to its title and was a place were Democrats got together rather than got separated. I would like to see Obama supporters holding him up to scrutiny and suggesting how he needs to get more progressive and behave. I would like to see Clinton supporters do the same thing for Hillary. Right now, we are just doing the neocon's job for them.

Thank you again for a very refreshing and thoughful post. It is amazing how many replies you got that perfectly proved your point.

[GCP]

300. Wonderful post, Sparkly

You've summed up exactly what I've been feeling for weeks now. I, too, started out on Mediawhoresonline and came to DU through my son in 2001.
This place is a snake pit nowadays and I can only hope we can come together at the end of these primaries and work together to get a dem in the WH.