Pardon My Assumptions

[NanceGreggs]

I thought I knew the rules of the game going in, but apparently I misunderstood. I thought the idea of a political website was meant as a place to exchange views – and yes, in a primary season, to proudly support one’s preferred candidate.

However, what GD-P has become is something else entirely. It is no longer a matter of supporting one's candidate, but a matter of dismissing the underlying reasons for anyone making a choice contrary to your own.

When I encounter a supporter of either Hillary or Obama in a discussion thread, I start with the assumption that they have made a valid assessment of the two remaining contenders, and have chosen accordingly.

Unless someone says something that leads me to think the contrary (e.g. “I’m voting for Hillary because she’s cool”, or, conversely, “I’m supporting Obama because he’s dreamy-looking”, I stick to my initial assumption as to their reasons for preferring one candidate over the other.

But according to way too many posters here, all Obama supporters are kool-aid drinking cultists. It couldn’t possibly be the case that millions of Americans have made their decision as to who to support based on reasoned judgment. That particular choice must be dismissed as the ravings of the lunatic fringe (albeit a majority lunatic fringe as of this writing).

“Obama’s supporters think he can do no wrong. Obama’s fans are just that, fans – people caught up in the image with no regard for the issues. Obama’s excuse-makers will forgive him anything, no matter what he says or does.”

Now try this: Replace the name “Obama” with the name “Hillary” in the above statements. That shoe fits equally well on the other foot, doesn’t it?

And I can hear the replies already: “No, because Hillary has substance, and Obama doesn’t.”

I have listened intently to both candidates’ campaign speeches, as well as their responses in the debates. I am not hearing any more details from one than the other – and that’s as it should be. Campaigning is meant to be a broad-strokes overview of their respective positions (which, of course, are not terribly different). Campaign speeches, by their very nature, are meant to be a rallying of support and enthusiasm; not a lecture series.

And by the way, if either candidate went out on the road with a PowerPoint presentation, pie-charts and graphics explaining their plans in excruciating detail on how to reduce the debt, fund education, etc., their audiences wouldn’t be able to vote either way – simply because they’d all be asleep.

By the same token, Hillary’s supporters are not war-mongering corporatists who are too idiotic to understand that she won’t be the nominee. Hoping that there is a drastic change in the current Obama-leaning momentum, or a scandal or false move on his part that will turn the tide, is not idiotic nor delusional; it is the same kind of hope that Obama supporters would rally around if that proverbial shoe was yet again on the other foot.

As I stated in an earlier post, the minute you resort to using terms like “HillBot” or “Obamaniac”, you’ve already lost the argument. And it should be apparent why: If you must resort to name-calling in order to make your point, you obviously have no other point you feel is worth stating.

In the end, we’re all going to have to come together behind the nominee, whoever he/she turns out to be. That has nothing to do with your personal preference nor mine, but has everything to do with the choice of the majority of Democratic voters.

And if it is your considered position that your opinion is more valid, more intelligent, more fact-based, and should carry more weight than anyone else’s opinion, I’d be interested in hearing why.

As for those of you who will persist in NOT voting for the nominee because he/she wasn’t your personal choice – well, let me be blunt: You probably aren’t mature enough to participate in the process anyway.

Those of us determined to see a Democrat in the White House come next January will just soldier on without your “contribution” – because calling John McCain’s supporters McSame kool-aid drinking cultists doesn’t win general elections any more than it will win the party's nomination.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. K&R

:kick:

[Joanie Baloney]

4. Ditto the K&R

You rock my :web: , Nance!

-JB

[izzybeans]

2. Excellent post, as is usual.

This is partially the reason why I have just resigned myself to posting snark on the most disingenous of threads and occasionally attempting to enter into a serious discussion.

But I've been experimenting lately. They've been failures.

:)

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I'm kicking this thread because you're so cool!!

(And, for all I know, dreamy looking!)

Can you send a pic?

[NanceGreggs]

9. Unfortunately (for me) ...

... I am neither.

Which explains why I didn't toss my own hat in the ring (along with inhaling, and having enjoyed it!)

[Patsy Stone]

13. But so many people want to have a beer with you.

You'd be a shoe-in!

[NanceGreggs]

32. I don't like beer, and therefore don't drink it ...

And now you see why my campaign never got off the ground. It wasn't the lack of substance, it was merely the lack of suds.

[Patsy Stone]

46. Along with having too much common sense to run,

that'll do it every time. If you change your mind, don't worry, you may still be in luck. I hear lattes are the new beer.

[Seabiscuit]

54. Suds vs. substance. I like that one. n/t

Content never got anyone anywhere in the current media climate.

"George Bush. The kind of guy you'd love to have a beer with."

[DFW]

70. Welcome to the secret society

I don't like beer, either, and don't touch the stuff (and
me stationed in Germany!). I'd be surprised to learn that
the number of others out there who share the same taste and
are willing to admit it can be measured in anything bigger
than fractions.

[ekwhite]

84. If you don't like German beer, you really don't like beer. NT

[DFW]

101. I don't and I really don't!

It has been diagnosed as an incurable genetic flaw.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Awwwww, modesty

(and a couple of skeletons)...

But tell me true, was there anyone our age who went to college & actually didn't inhale? Hell, I'd still inhale if I weren't so afraid of getting busted and if it wouldn't totally freak out my wife.

[NanceGreggs]

24. The truth is ...

... I have been inhaling on a regular basis for the past forty-plus years.

Now starts the countdown before that revelation winds up on a certain un-namable website under the post title "AH HA! She admits it!" - even though I've posted it many times before.

As a thrice-married female who admittedly inhales, and has no qualms about the fact that I've had an abortion, I wouldn't stand a chance as a Democratic nominee.

However, if I was an elected official caught luring under-aged children into a sexual encounter via email, or sported a 'wide stance' in public bathrooms, the GOP would be beating a path to my door.

[Binka]

45. You Didn't Marry The Same Joker Twice Did You?

I have a "friend" who did that and she calls it her two for one shot. She married again but is not sure if she has been married thrice or twice. She is all over that now. I don't see her that much anymore, she is long gone.:smoke:

[NanceGreggs]

61. No, not me - three different men.

But I DO KNOW two women and one man who have divorced and remarried the same spouse. I always find that to be - somewhat unsettling.

[ExPatLeftist]

74. Damn

My father's mother and father were married to each other a total of 5 times, and divorced 5. After the second marriage my father vowed to not to go to any more of their weddings. And he didn't.

[NanceGreggs]

104. Maybe they just liked weddings! n/t

[unapatriciated]

112. hopefully "thrice" times was the charmed one.

I know mine was. Like you thrice-married and still inhaling, not as often as I would like (due to a move to the red state of georgia). Tho lame54 wasn't under-age, he is a wee bit younger and I did lure him into a sexual encounter and am not ashamed to admit it.

[DFW]

72. I went to college and didn't inhale.

The first (and last) time I tried a cigarette, I gagged and coughed
and never tried again. The first (and last) time I tried a joint, it
was the same result, only worse. Somehow, my lungs were not cut out
for storing the smoke of burning leaves and arsenic-containing paper.

[NastyRiffraff]

5. "Those of us determined to see a Democrat in the White House come next January"

Bingo.

That's the bottom line, the crux of it, the reason for our passion...for either candidate.

I think we get so caught up in the primary wars we forget the big picture...to get a Democrat in the White House. Okay, most of us prefer one Democrat over the other, and that's fine right now; that's what the primary season is all about. It doesn't mean that the one we prefer is evil, or must be destroyed. It means simply that we prefer one over the other, for whatever reason.

In the end, I hope we all support the nominee, because, after all, our ultimate goal is "to see a Democrat in the White hHouse come next January."

Thanks for this, Nance. Great post.

[cbayer]

6. I often try to question those kinds of posters

I ask them why they feel the need to insult someone to make their point or why they choose to use derogatory names to describe a group of supporters. And I've noticed more people doing the same. When people from the same camp do it, I think it can be very effective.

Most do not respond to me, but those that do often become much more reasonable.

I don't know if it helps, but it makes me feel better.

[stellanoir]

7. Well it's rare I find one of your threads early on, since you tend to post them after my slumber.

I totally hear ya.

This has been a long protracted journey.

People have often over reacted with pig headed assertions on both sides. They speculate about whether it's worse now than it was in '04 and I think it's silly.

Apples and oranges and so much more at stake and all that.

Yet what we, not just the Democratic party, but all of humanity, would be wise to celebrate, is that which unites us, not indulge in further divisiveness.

I thankfully have a fairly strong psychic ignore function. Though I often can smell a DUzy at ten thousand electrons or less, I've been troubled but not excessively so with the level of vitriol.

May it be quelled very soon.

Thank you as always, for your words of wisdom.

best

K & R'd

[Window]

8. K/R.

:yourock:



:kick:

[theredpen]

10. The race is close because both candidates are good

We want them both. Too bad we can't have them both (and people, don't start on the VP idea — not right now).

[JeffR]

11. No! Wrong!!

And don't try to disagree because you'll just be proving my point for me.

YAY!!!!!!!!1111111 I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111

What's the prize?:shrug:

[Auntie Bush]

15. A good swift kick in the pants .

[JeffR]

18. Thanks for proving me right!!!

I know the truth and it's my sacred calling to share it with DU by spamming the boards repeatedly.

I AM SPARTACUS!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111

[Auntie Bush]

21. Huh?

That was an answer to your question. "What's the prize?"

[JeffR]

23. D'ohhhhhhhhh

:cry:

[Patsy Stone]

12. For the life of me,

I can't understand where all of the hatred comes from. I thought we were all on the same side, but the past few months have tested that theory to the max.

Whenever I see a flame thread, or an argument which reduces the level of discussion to "Did not! Does too!", it occurs to me: if half of that energy went towards working for the candidate of choice it might make a real difference in the outcome.

[liam_laddie]

96. Ab Fab Patsy - o/t

Is a champagne & vodka followed by a smoke still the daily dos(e)?
Jes' joshin'

[Patsy Stone]

105. It is!

Except today:

Sláinte!

[XemaSab]

16. Nance, I don't know how you do it.

Another intelligent, reasoned, and all-around classy post.

K&R.

[JohnnyLib2]

17. How about a "supporters of NanceGregs" forum, open to those

who agree with her words:


In the end, we’re all going to have to come together behind the nominee, whoever he/she turns out to be. That has nothing to do with your personal preference nor mine, but has everything to do with the choice of the majority of Democratic voters.

K & R

[sniffa]

19. Hey, you're on the Google News search

How did you get linked to there? Searching for various DUers (including myself) yields no hits.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Beats me, sniffa ...

... I honestly don't know how these things work. But I'm always amazed at how (and why) my stuff winds up where it does on the internetz.

[donheld]

63. Sniffa, I googled you

You(a DU entry for you) were number 4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5065371&mesg_id=5065408

[grantcart]

109. Last saturday when I googled "Iowa County Convention Update"

the number one hit was my own thread of the same title.

I made a sardonic reply to the thread and tried to google an hour later.

Now the sardonic thread was the number 1 reply. lol.

Today trying it wasn't on the first page.

[intaglio]

20. Voices of sanity

are always in short supply. Voices of sanity in GD-P are rare as hens teeth (btw I include myself in the "common as muck" category far too often)

[ExPatLeftist]

75. Hmmm...

"Rare as hens' teeth" - You wouldn't perhaps enjoy partaking of a particular English ale, would you? ;)

[intaglio]

76. Nooh, I'z a zoider alky

translation - I prefer the fermented juice of apples, tho' some IPA's and Mild ales when I'm "oop north"

[ExPatLeftist]

77. Ah, OK - I am a fan of Old Speckled Hen...

...and recognized your saying as something they use for advertising the derivative "Hen's Tooth".

BTW Where "oop north"? I have spent quite a bit of time around the Darlington/Middlesboro area.

[intaglio]

78. My lady comes from Cockermouth - and we've heard all the jokes!!

we live in West Cornwall :toast: :hi:

[boston bean]

25. What if we decide to keep the same strategy and call McCain and all his supporters racist, will that

work in the general for O.

[NanceGreggs]

28. Probably no more than calling them "sexists" ...

... would help Hillary in the GE.

[boston bean]

33. I'm glad to see we agree. nt

[NanceGreggs]

37. On most points ...

... we usually do.

And the fact that we do disagree on some points doesn't negate my respect for your opinion, nor your ability to express it exceptionally well.

This sometimes seems like a silly lil' emoticon :hug: , but it is truly heartfelt.

[boston bean]

43. Very true!

:hug:

[blues90]

26. Try this

"As for those of you who will persist in NOT voting for the nominee because he/she wasn’t your personal choice – well, let me be blunt: You probably aren’t mature enough to participate in the process anyway. "

Perhaps there are those who are sick and tired of the same old worn out pick the candidate of the two offered regardless if they will make one bit of difference .

Look back at 2006 and just how well that worked out over a year later . Maturity is realizing that you don't continue to fall into the same lame rational over and over again . It's a bit late now , but it did not have to be this way .

[NanceGreggs]

29. If you, or anyone else, feels that NOT voting ...

... for the ultimate Democratic candidate achieves something, I can't stop you from feeling that way - any more than anyone else can.

[blues90]

38. you are right about one thing

No one can change the way I feel .

I would change the word ultimate to media chosen and democratic to republican light or at best , corporate democrat .

I am not saying that people should vote for McCain . Bush has lowered the bar so low that a cornered rat looks better .

This is the problem as I see it . Smooth it over , take what we have offered and hope that it just works out . This it really the wrong time to settle once again and allow the media to get away with it once again .

If candidates laying out their plans will put people to sleep and primaries are designed for what , a personality contest ? Then there is an huge problem here and a complete lack of interest in the real issues .

[Breeze54]

52. A year later? We need a majority in the Senate. We don't have one yet.

Hopefully we will this year. And don't forget...
Sen. Johnson was gone for 6 months with a brain aneurysm.
I want a Dem in the WH, Blues90, and I think you do too.
I mean, for all the hardships you've endured, you certainly
can't be wanting a rethug again! :crazy: That would be nuts.

[blues90]

94. No Breeze54 , I don't want a repub ever again

I have followed the Dems and even when they were the minority they still could have done a lot more to stall things and did not have to confirm Torture boy or Condi or Roberts and the other freak -O yet they did .

Now ever as the slight majority they continue to be controlled by the slight minority .

I had a lot of faith with the surge of Dem voters in 2006 . Then I sort of lost it when Pelosi brought in the entire family tree when they had their day of winning .

They have allowed the surge in Iraq , they have confirmed Gates and the new AG freak and the whims of the Dems Schumer and Feinstein who I feel long before this were completely sold out so called Dems .

All the focus since the 2006 midterms which is all of 2007 and now in the third month of 2008 has been on the presidential hopefuls . Then there was this burst when Obama leaped onto the scene , this is not to say he did not have the right to do so , never the less he came out of seemingly nowhere to all people who do not watch CSPAN . Then from there it became a quick media strip-search and down play of Kucinich and Edwards simply because they had the guts to bring on the corporations .

Once that was over the pressure built up against Hillary ,warranted of not she was shot at from every angle and took all of Bill's past heat while Obama just got a free ride even with the progressive radio shows .

Then Oprah jumped in in Iowa and let the show begin .

I am old enough to have become a bit suspicious of these sorts of crazes . like it or not I saw the movements in the 60's and even then I did just leap in on faith , I questioned things , I always have being steered in schools and by parents who always felt they knew what was best for me when in fact they never took the time to know me at all . I have been self made and went with what felt right for me . So I don't follow and don't trust easy .

Now here we are , the fainting and crying and all the people trying to justify this saying well it was because of this or that , it was hot or crowded or they had no food or water , well they were not in a detention center for crips sake so I can't buy this sort of the day the beatles arrived hype .

It's been a swell and wave with little substance in my view , I know well many people will certainly bring out the voodoo doll with my mane on it and stick in pins of pain but I don't care . It is just not the way the country should be picking a president as they toss out all reason to the junk heap .

Now that Hillary has the curse of the maggot people on her and now that Obama has the Rev Wright shaking the heavens with lightening bolts the entire Dem party now really seems to have become a karmic joke of surreal quality .

People have short memories but not when it comes to these sorts of things , these stick with the adhesive bond that can be compared to what sticks in the minds of Iraqi people while they view the US .

We have a definite division , it is clear in it's nature to all who can see and admit the truth and it is not in the minds who have the ideals of the big win set in their minds as a cement pillar of some kind of faith or hope or pick the word that fits , there are many choices here .

My intent has never been to discourage anyone or to convince anyone . My intent whether dark or bleak is only what i see as my truth which is expressed as my opinion which is based on my own experience in life on this always in chaos country . This is to say that today the pace man has purposely setup for the sake of capitalist gain has become the norm and accepted lifestyle which in it's very nature creates a disconnect in society just in order to keep up let alone moving ahead .

[SwampG8r]

27. how about this tho?

i call my self an obamian is that ok and i refer to fellow obama supporters sometimes as obamatrons ?

[NanceGreggs]

30. As much as it pains me to say so ...

... I am actually NOT the arbiter of what should or shouldn't be said around here - even though I think everyone should defer to my better judgment on every issue! :sarcasm:

I am an ardent Obama supporter - but I would never refer to myself as an "Obamatron", any more than I would refer to a Hillary supporter as a "HillBot".

Either phrase, IMHO, does not advance the debate as to why one candidate should be considered more seriously than the other, but rather dissolves what should be a serious discussion into something far less than serious.

[SwampG8r]

48. ok

ill stop saying shrillary and hillbots
but in talking to fellow obamians can i be more casual in my wording?
since we are among friends and all
i just like to use some of em because they carry a sarcasm in undertone that i like


obama08

[bridgit]

31. I agree that republicans need to get the hell out of DC ASAP. I'll leave it for others...

to de-engineer the mantle of the 'kool-aid drinking cultists' http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5105554&mesg_id=5105554

"By the same token, Hillary’s supporters are not war-mongering corporatists who are too idiotic to understand that she won’t be the nominee." Jiggy work there no doubt; a compliment and a barb atop the head of one pin and in the flow of but one sentence :thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

34. Good post

Recommended. :)

[Redstone]

35. Take THAT, you damn windmill!

Nance, I'm your friend, so I hope you'll listen. There's no way you're going to be able to lower the level of rabid bile in GD-P, no matter how hard you try. And I know how hard you've tried. I've tried too, but in only a pale shadow of the extend of your efforts.

They will not listen. They will not change.

I admire you for continuing to try, but it isn't going to work. So let it go, and save yourself the time and heartburn you put into your repeated calls for sanity.

I wish it were not so, but there simply will not be sanity here. Not for quite some time.

Redstone

[NanceGreggs]

39. I realize that, Redstone.

But I can't help but try (as I have seen you, and countless others, try as well).

I've seen too many posters (on BOTH sides) fall into the name-calling trap, egged-on by their anger at being called a "HillBot" or an "Obamaniac", and feeling that the only viable response is to join the nonsense.

This goes out to those who really do know better, but have allowed a temporary lapse in judgment get the better of them.

[Redstone]

40. And I hope it works. I suppose that even if you only change ONE mind,

it will have been worth the effort.

I admire your persistence, I do. Would that I had the strength to be so persistent.

Redstone

[IndependentDem]

36. it is always a pleasure to read your posts.

many days you are the shining light that makes this place what it is. thank you for your contribution!

[madamesilverspurs]

41. Yeppers (of course!)

Maybe it would help to rename GD-P to something more accurately descriptive -- like "Reform School Playground at Recess."

[NanceGreggs]

44. As always, my dear friend ..

... you waste no time cutting to the chase.

"Reform School Playground at Recess" - sounds like one of those movies from the 'fifties!

[madamesilverspurs]

47. eeewwww, "Reefer Madness!"

I'll go pop some corn...

[NanceGreggs]

56. So funny (but logical) ...

... "Reefer Madness" was my first thought as well!

[DFW]

73. Leave the initials, change the name:

"GD: P"
=
Gradeschool Discussions: Playground

[HughMoran]

42. Of course I agree and will K&R your thread

I wish I could say that I will always resist responding to the hype that you describe.

[ksquire]

97. hehe -- i'm in agreement.

[garthranzz]

49. But - but - but - this doesn't belong in GD:P!!

It makes too much sense. It's reasoned, reasonable, dispassionate. It allows for discourse and disagreement without hatred. How can this be?
Oh, of course, you must be one of those hobbits.

Great post, obviously.

[dorktv]

50. I am all about Gravel.

The Hilbots and Obamatics are just deluding themselves.
Okay not really but I do enjoy making jokes.

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. My, but aren't we getting sassy in our old age

And I want to be just like you when I grow up. :toast:

Very well stated.

[NanceGreggs]

107. One of the few advantages of being considered ...

... in the throes of one's "old age" is the attendant ability to be sassy!!!

:hi:

[Breeze54]

53. 'Pardon me, would you happen to have any Grey Poupon?'

:kick: & Recommended

[better tomorrow]

55. sorry, but this cultist based my choice on.....

these issues....

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ Now, just because I like Kool-Aid doesn't mean.....

[metalluk]

57. Very nicely stated.

I agree with all that you've said except in one respect.

I agree, for example, that my judgment is no better than that of other people or the only correct position. I do, however, have to be guided by my own judgment.

My starting point is somewhat different than yours and that of most DU participants. I am first and foremost an American and only secondarily a Democrat. My goal is to support the presidential candidate who will be best for the country. Since my values are liberal, I've found that I end up choosing Democratic candidates perhaps 95-98% of the time. There are occasions, however, when I reach the judgment that a moderate Republican candidate (we have some pretty moderate Republicans here in Rhode Island, like Lincoln Chafee and his father before him) for a particular position is so much more qualified that I vote for that person despite generally disagreeing with Republican principles. Naturally, I'd prefer that the Democrats had nominated a better qualified person, but they didn't. It seems to me that if a voter is simply going to ALWAYS vote for the Democrat, irregardless of other considerations, they might as well not think about it or discuss the candidates at all and just pull the straight-party lever.

My problem with respect to the present campaign is that I'd very much like to vote Democratic, especially after eight dreadful years of Bush, but I just can't in good conscience vote for a candidate as grossly underqualified (IMO) as Barack Obama. I'm stuck with my considered judgment that Clinton would be best for the country but that McCain would be a less risky choice than Obama. I fully understand that Obama supporters completely disagree with my perception, but that's my best judgment. So, rallying behind the nominee, if it is Obama, is simply not an option for me. My prime reason for being here is to try to maximize my likelihood of having an opportunity to vote for a Democratic candidate that I can believe will be a good choice for the country. I only see one such candidate remaining.

[NanceGreggs]

60. "Very nicely stated"? Right back at ya!

Very nicely stated indeed. Of course, I do not agree with your choice as between Obama and McCain, but I cannot argue with the fact that you have obviously thought this through and will ultimately make the decision you think most reflective of your views.

Your candor is greatly appreciated - and respected.

[walldude]

58. It's true.. and it's catching

I had to leave the other day when I found myself posting for no other reason than to be snarky. And you know me, I always try to see both sides of the issues, but man you get in here and it's like insanity.

[madfloridian]

59. Yours is such a reasoned voice, Nance. Thanks.

I think living in Florida in the middle of the fray is warping my mind.

[Scurrilous]

62. K & R

:thumbsup:

[gwojtowy]

64. Obama the Flim-Flam Man

Obama has proclaimed himself the apostle of the "new politics." Yet for a "new politician" he sure as hell likes to use the "old politics" a lot! He distorts his opponent's position in writing and speech. He over-exaggerates his own positions just like any other politician. His sin is in the flim-flam. Hillary never put herself on so high a pedestal. I don't have to drink Kool-Aid to have confidence in her.

[NanceGreggs]

65. I always LOVE IT ...

... when someone proves my point for me.

And you just have.

[Swamp Rat]

66. Meanwhile the McSchutzstaffel marches on...

[bhikkhu]

67. Now that is a keeper - thanks!

[Norrin Radd]

68. As I've stated before,

people in GD-P are senselessly beating on each other like British football hooligans, but at least football hooligans have the decency to be from opposing teams.

[Awsi Dooger]

69. You're more impressive outside the primaries

There's a defensive-minded partisan imbalance to this thread, whether you realize it or not. I'm amazed no one else caught it or commented on it.

Notice you exhaust 6 paragraphs to cleanse Obama backers, and in fact deflect criticism from Obama himself, beginning with the sentence, "But according to many posters here, all Obama supporters..." That theme basically extends throughout six paragraphs, including elongated reaches to accommodate speeches and pie charts.

Not only do you summarize Obama supporters as having "reasoned judgment," but you detour to your candidate himself, emphasizing he's hardly less specific than Hillary, and besides, campaign speeches are meant to be pep rallies, not insomnia-inspiring classroom lectures. Takes care of several sticky points all at once.

Now to the Hillary paragraph. Yes, singular. It was hysterical, and revealing, that you didn't wash Hillary of any false or exaggerated charge from Obama backers. Zilch. The only handout was toward her supporters, who properly rely on hope.

Actually, this type of slant is very common, to the point of inevitable. I've edited copy before and writers/columnists subconsciously favor their own biases, even in pieces designed to be fair, or to address an unrelated topic.

BTW, one early sentence has potential to wipe out an entire DU industry:

"It couldn’t possibly be the case that millions of Americans have made their decision as to who to support based on reasoned judgment."

Gad, doesn't that incorporate 2000 through 2004? Reasoned from a perspective we don't understand, but reasoned nonetheless. Election Reform and, at various points, other DU forums have fixated and flailed at those outcomes, supposedly reasoned via outright theft.

[Baby Snooks]

82. What Nance is saying...

She is saying party loyalty is the ideal. She will hold her nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. That is what Nance is saying.

I thought I could hold my nose as well. Until I looked closely at the money trail. Particularly the personal money trail of the Clintons. I am sorry but the only thing worse than another Bush in the White House is another Clinton in the White House. It's all about the money and there seems to be an intertwining of interests in the money and they are not the interests of the American people.

Many Republicans followed this ideal in 2000 and again in 2004. And are watching our economy collapse and listening to "their" president tell them to eat cake along with everyone else and they are regretting having voted for him simply because he was the Republican candidate.

[NanceGreggs]

106. Of course this OP has a bias ...

... I'm an Obama supporter, and I am speaking from that perspective.

The fact is that the "kool-aid-drinking cultists" meme is thrown at Obama supporters on a regular basis. There are certainly other barbs thrown at Hillary supporters here, but not that particular one.

"Not only do you summarize Obama supporters as having 'reasoned judgment' ..."

My point was that if we were showing each other any courtesy or civility here, we would ALL assume that if someone backs either candidate over the other, it is the result of reasoned judgment and should not be automatically dismissed as having been duped into their choice by way of "being carried away by a rock-star persona", having "drunk the kool-aid", etc.

I certainly didn't attempt to "cleanse" Obama supporters, any more than I attempted to "cleanse" the Hillary supporters. When it comes to blame for out-and-out nastiness, there is plenty of blame to go around - on both sides.

While I find it offensive to be dismissed as a "kool-aid drinker", I find it equally offensive to see Hillary supporters told that they are "losers" who can't accept defeat. There have been many posts over the past week along the lines of "but what if FL and MI are counted as is", or "what if there were do-overs in these states, would it change things". I don't think these people have to be derided because they are hopeful that there is some way that their candidate can be brought back, alive and kickin'.

Re my statement: "It couldn’t possibly be the case that millions of Americans have made their decision as to who to support based on reasoned judgment." Again I remind people here that dismissing support for Obama as people having somehow been "mesmerized" into preferring him over Hillary (and there are millions across the nation) is a ridiculous notion.

As per the 2000 and 2004 elections, I wasn't alluding to those at all - nor was I talking about the voting population at large. This OP was aimed at DUers - people who, just by virtue of being here day after day, are probably much better informed about, and interested in, politics than most people in the general voting population.

As an Obama supporter, I do not appreciate being told that I made my choice based on anything other than a reasoned assessment of the two remaining candidates. I don't automatically assume that any fellow DUer chose to support Hillary as the result of some mind-altering hypnotism - and would like to be shown the same courtesy.

That is all.

[emanymton]

71. Assume - Makes An 'ASS' out Of 'U' And 'ME'

.

Oh lighten up. The show is just getting started.

Yes supporters of all candidates get excited. I still prefer John Edwards (with a pinch of hope that he might still be the nominee of the Democratic Party) but believe that there is a need to support whoever wins the nomination because of a greater goal of bringing USA back to the light of open, responsible and accountable government.

As excited as the DU supporters are _for_ their candidate, they will remain so for the final nominee because the people at DU recognize just who the other party are. This grassroots excitement is great for the country, let is boil. All this mob energy will be directed _against_ the other party as soon as the true democracy of the Democratic Party does as it is suppose to. Let the people have their say, no matter how loud!

-----
Bush lied, people died.
No Amnesty, no pardons no immunity!!
Hold them accountable!

-----

BTW - love your writings.

.

[myrna minx]

79. K&R Nance.

:applause:

I think this Dr. Seuss book should be required reading before posting in this forum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories

"The Sneetches"

By Dr. Seuss
Sneetches are a race of odd, yellow creatures who live on a beach. Some Sneetches have a star on their bellies, and in the beginning of the story the presence or absence of a star is the basis for discrimination. Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd", while Sneetches without stars are shunned and consequently mopey.
In the story, a "fix-it-up chappie" named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears, driving a cart of strange machines. He offers the Sneetches without stars a chance to have them by going through his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The old star-bellied Sneetches are furious until McBean tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars. This escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean leaves a rich man. In the end, the Sneetches learn that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friends.
The story is an obvious parable for the cycle of fashion and how snobbery and insecurity drive consumerism to consumers' own detriment. It contains the messages that all people regardless of race, class or clothing, are equal, and that the human temptation to judge people by their appearance or by the company they seem to keep is full of pitfalls. It may also have deeper connotations of racial discrimination.
There is a reference to The Sneetches in the Dead Kennedys song, "Holiday in Cambodia"
"You're a Star-bellied Sneetch,
you suck like a leech.
You want everyone to act like you."
The story of the Sneetches has undertones of politics. The Star, as in the Star-bellied Sneetches, symbolizes the Star of David that was worn by the Jews during WW2 and the Holocaust and McBean symbolizes Adolf Hitler. However, the ending to the story and reality are very different from one another.

[Baby Snooks]

80. Follow the Pied Piper?

"As for those of you who will persist in NOT voting for the nominee because he/she wasn’t your personal choice – well, let me be blunt: You probably aren’t mature enough to participate in the process anyway."

It sometimes isn't just personal choice but collective choice and I see the Democrats following the same Pied Piper the Republicans did for over 12 years which allowed our Congress to be hijacked by some Republicans who really didn't serve their party any more than some Democrats now serve theirs. Republicans and Democrats who wear the label but not the belief of those whose interests they supposedly serve.

Telling people they are not mature enough to participate in the process because they choose not to blindly follow a Pied Piper is itself mature?

This campaign has begun to remind some of the primary campaign for the gubernatorial race in Texas in 2006 in which two sides were pitted against each other and this "you are not a real Democrat" card was played during the primary as well as the election itself.

What really gave some a sense of deja vu was the "endorsement" of a candidate by Ann Richards even though she is dead - in both cases it was an "endorsement" that many who knew her say she would never have made. This time, two of her children spoke out.

Among other things, where Molly Ivins went is usually where Ann Richards went. And Molly Ivins made it clear who she would not have endorsed in this race in one of her columns. And I doubt this time she would have told people to follow the Piped Piper as she did in 2006.

The interesting thing about that race for governor in Texas is that both Democrats and Republicans decided not to follow the Pied Piper and neither party candidate won their party vote by what they should have. Both Democrats and Republicans in Texas went Independent. They voted their conscience. What they believed in. Personally and collectively.

No one has the right to question party loyalty simply because someone decides to vote their conscience. Not at this point in our nation's history. Not when too many in both parties have no loyalty to the party themselves. All eyes turn to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe impeachment would have been unsuccessful. It still would have been filed and voted on. And many Republicans would have supported it. And voted Democratic as a result. Because the Democrats stood up for what was right. But in fact, the Democrats did not. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example of how "party loyalty" not only doesn't serve the party but doesn't serve the people.

The money trail of many candidates shows quite clearly there is no party loyalty. Only loyalty to the money. And some of that money reflects the interests of the other party. Not the party the candidate is claiming as theirs. They are Republicrats. They represent the interests of oligarchy rather than democracy. Our economy is collapsing finally because of them. They will survive. And tell the rest of us to "eat cake."

There will be many Democrats who simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Those in Texas will say nothing. They simply won't vote for her. They don't want to hear again that they are not really Democrats.

[Malidictus Maximus]

113. I respectfully disagree

"No one has the right to question party loyalty simply because someone decides to vote their conscience." But ones party loyalty does not, be definition even exist, if one does not support the candidate of the party in the general election.

Not to put anyone down, I am far from a loyal Democrat myself, being more of a Libertarian who has come to believe in the need for universal healthcare and (much) more effective and proactive environmental protection, but to claim to be a loyal and not support the candidate, (regardless of the tightness or ostentation with which one holds one nose), seems prima facie contradictory. If either Senator is so repulsive that one cannot support them, then do the honorable thing and 'come out' loud and proud as voting third party.

In my analysis we'll be putting up with this crap as long as there are only two parties. I am supporting whichever nominee the Democratic party puts forth because this fucking war has to END and global warming must be stopped, by any means and at any cost.
Regards.

[reflection]

81. Forget Obama and Clinton

NanceGreggs 2008!!!!

:bounce:

[mrbluto]

91. Yes! That would make sense!

That way we'd continue the fine trends that define America.

We would follow said fine trends to their logical conclusion.

This is what motivates many a Nader voter.

[ekwhite]

83. Great post Nance! K&R NT

[mrbluto]

85. Something for dittoheads to think about

*** Disregard if you're not a dittohead ***

---

It's charming to see what Nance thinks of the capacities of the general populous:

And by the way, if either candidate went out on the road with a PowerPoint presentation, pie-charts and graphics explaining their plans in excruciating detail on how to reduce the debt, fund education, etc., their audiences wouldn’t be able to vote either way – simply because they’d all be asleep.

It seems Nance believes that the public can't handle the truth, unless it's told with small easy words. Believe me, she's not alone. Many infamous political leaders have operated on the same principle.

I don't happen to think the public rides a short yellow bus to school every day. I think more detail, concrete detail, is what I want out of the candidate I'll vote for. Unlike Nance I don't think it's a virtue to sell a pig in a poke.

Nance, maybe you just hang around too many people that find detail "excruciating".

Dittoheads aren't know for their love of detail.

Hmmm. Maybe Nance is has the right idea. Let's try it out:

:sarcasm: Clearly what we need to dig out of the BushCo mess is to have it explained in broad-strokes. (i.e. a way that leaves plausible deniability for the culprits.) :sarcasm:

O.K. - I couldn't manage it. Sorry.

So, if you're going to stand by what you've said, answer me this Nance:

- Do you really think we need less detail?

- Do you really think their audiences would fall asleep? (I think I and a number of bloggers, and actual journalists (sorry Nance) would be riveted)

- Do you think Junior gave the appropriate amount of detail during his two presidential campaigns, or perhaps we would have been a bit better off if more detail had been expected from him?

- If not (and you think we would have been better off with more detail), then is it only people in our party that should operate with "Broad-strokes" and none of that "excruciating detail"?

- Do you think it's easier or more difficult to judge a candidate's commitment and consistency with a vague plan rather than a detailed plan to look at?

- Has it dawned on you that all this "PowerPoint presentation, pie-charts and graphics" and "excruciating detail" could be posted on a candidate's website?

- Do you have any idea why they haven't done so?

---

As usual Nance - make sure to answer only one, if any, of these questions should you respond. (ignore the inconvenient ones)
Also remember to misconstrue it toward what you wanted to say anyway, while slipping in a good dose of dismissal.

I was going to ask you to avoid "excruciating detail", but I realized that wasn't something I'd have to worry about with you.

Cheers!

[NanceGreggs]

108. You know, sometimes people miss my point ...

... by inches, or even a mile. You, however, have missed every point I've made by light-years.

Don't you have other places to play on the internetz - places where missing the point is considered a talent?



Now, was THAT dismissive enough for you?

[ldf]

110. now, be gentle, nance

:thumbsup:

:grouphug:

[NanceGreggs]

111. I realize that it's against conventional wisdom ...

... to feed stray animals lest they wind up living on your doorstep, but I just couldn't resist - he seemed so, uh, hungry for a scrap to take back "home" to the others.

[Lannigan]

86. K&R - nt

[redqueen]

87. Brilliant again, as usual...

:applause:

[Texas Hill Country]

88. brilliant. thank you.

[txaslftist]

89. A very thoughtful and intelligent post.

We don't like that around here. Maybe you'd be better off posting in General Discussion or some place rational? GD:P is for flamebait only, if you please.

[swimmernsecretsea]

90. I tell you this a lot, Nance, but I'm so very grateful you're here.

Thank you, more than you know.

[ooglymoogly]

92. After watching my favorite candidates eliminated by corporate media for not

jumping through the hoops of the corporate string pullers, I have now settled on Obama. I will support him till the cows come home, but whichever democrat is chosen by corporate media I will support that democratic candidate till the cows come home and just hope for the best knowing that a democrat of any stripe is far better than a totally unacceptable pug of any stripe.

so that said, I recommend this post because you are so dreamy.

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

93. Great Post. thx

[girl_interrupted]

95. Awesome Post K&R

But it is wrong to still hold out hope for Gore? I know...I'm immature. Call me a dreamer, but I think he's the real uniter. Oh well, here's to a democratic victory in the fall!

[sorrybushisfromtexas]

98. A voice of reason

in that great wasteland called Democratic Underground GD-P.

Thank you,

Peace

[Danger Mouse]

99. I REALLY hate the name calling on here. It's SO immature and puerile.

I'd hope we can rise above it.

[racaulk]

100. Very well stated, Nance.

K&R

[reflection]

102. Kick! NanceGreggs 2008!!

Yes she can!

[The Wizard]

103. as usual

:kick: :kick: :kick:
Oh yeah, GD-P is quite the place to see a shit fight.