When DUers are mean it hurts their choice for candidate!

[mirrera]

It may be a sign of the kind of staff that candidate will attract.

When people try and convince me that there is no difference between the two major parties, I always come back to the one major difference; the people that arrive with them.

Democratic candidates tend to bring us —whether they like it or not. That is a good thing. Funny story: I was sitting in a progressive meeting with a very small turn-out. On the agenda: How to deal with the Democratic Party in our county, as we were all of mixed affiliation. Long story short... WE were the Democratic Party. One by one we admitted that —un-wittingly in most cases— one was a secretary, one was a committee member, etc. They are us...

This is my first primary at DU, and I am truly still deciding on my primary vote. I lean, I change my mind, I post in favor, I stop posting, I agree, I disagree, I think, I read, in short I suspect I am like most people.

I appreciate posts that point out someone's voting record or a link to a missed video. I hate the paranoid jumpers to conclusion that ruin good threads. When it happens too much over one candidate in particular it makes me nervous about that candidate, because the same poster might be indicative of the potential staff or inner circle that may govern.

I think the candidates —I hope— would be embarrassed by that kind of support. Everyone should lighten up! Represent your candidate with dignity, respect, honor and intelligence. It will do them a better service...

PS I am leaving this damn keyboard! Spent all day watching the Senate yesterday and my car is buried in ice and snow...

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. "We are the Democratic Party." Tell that to the primary voters in Conn.

With Lieberman, the Democratic Party proved once and for all that they don't give a rat's ass about what we want.

[zalinda]

3. Lieberman won with a lot of repub support

Whether we like it or not, Lieberman won because he best represented his state. Now, did he blind side some dems, of course, but repubs want representation too, and they wanted him.

zalinda

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Clinton and other elected Democrats campaigned for him AFTER he left the party

The Democratic Party all but ignored the actual nominee, Ned Lamont, and instead threw all of its resources into reelecting the traitor from Connecticut.

How, pray tell, does this compare with the statement that "WE are the Democratic Party" when the Democratic Party shits on the rank-and-file's choice of nominee?

[zalinda]

6. Shame on those that campaigned for him

But, I won't condemn the whole dem party for a few.

zalinda

[mirrera]

8. I agree!

That is why the group I was in had an agenda item of "How to handle them". All of us had been holding our noses for so long it was only by accident that we realized that we had actually slipped into the apparatus pretty easily. We have empty slots waiting to be filled. We have to change it from within. I agree with Thom Hartman on this when he says "Tag your it". It is happening all over the USA, but we don't hear about it. The Lieberman episode was a disgrace, all the more reason to drive out the appeasers.

I am not walking my talk on this I will admit. I don't know the first thing about the inner politics of being a member of a party, having joined in name only in 2000 in order to vote in the primary. I now am a committee member and it scares me to death. I attended a few meetings and had the "right to vote" which I really didn't deserve. I hope to get more involved after the New year.

[AndyA]

2. I don't let what a candidate's supporters or staffers do influence me.

The candidate cannot know what every single one of them are saying and doing 24/7. I don't blame Hillary for comments the people work for her make, but I do blame candidates when they have a venue and allow someone with a bad message an audience, as Barack did with the anti-gay preacher. And Barack has never apologized for that. I do hold him personally responsible for that, and he will not get my vote because of it.

[Frances]

5. AndyA

I do not object to your comments about Obama because they are made in a reasonable way. I would not be MORE likely to vote FOR Obama because of what you said.

However, some posts about various candidates sound as though they were written by freepers. When that happens, I tend to think BETTER about the candidate being attacked.

I have not made up my mind and if a person really wants me to consider their candidate psoitively, they should write posts supporting that candidate.

[AndyA]

7. That is a reasonable attitude on your part.

Highlighting a candidate's good points, where they stand on the issues, etc., is without a doubt the best way to make that candidate look good.

I would not want anyone to change their mind about who they support because of something I've written, whether it be negative or positive. I would hope they would view my comments with an open mind, and then go check the facts for themselves. I'm human, I make mistakes, and it's hard to remember who said what about who, how someone voted on a particular issue, or details about their history. But all that information is available on the Internet, and I would hope people would check out the facts for themselves, and then form their own opinions based on the facts, not what I wrote.

And of course, we all know there are those who work for a candidate but don't disclose it, so I take most of what I read whether it be an attack or a compliment, with a grain of salt. The person writing might be getting paid to write those things. :shrug:

[mirrera]

9. I am talking about the paranoid accusations.

I have left threads and stopped reading because someone will be mercilessly attacked for wording something the wrong way. It does influence me only in that I miss out on other thoughtful posts, and it gives me an uneasy feeling. Ultimately everything we decide is filtered through our knowledge and our experiences. People would serve their candidates by being nice. You can have strong disagreements, but if you wouldn't say it at a personal gathering, I do not see why there is an inclination to be rude on line.

I guess part of it is the lack of facial expression, and all the ways we "recognize" each other when we can see each other.

I still say be nice. So what if someone works for a candidate or is a phony or any of those things, just put the facts as you see them out there and people will discern for themselves.

Darn, I am back at the computer.

[AlCzervik]

10. imo it makes me think less of the poster and not the candidate.

[KoKo]

11. kick...