What was DU like in 2004?

[SlipperySlope]

I wasn't here then.

Was there as much excitement about John Kerry in the closing days of the primary race as there is about Barack Obama now?

Was there as much bitterness between Edwards and Kerry supporters as there is today between Obama and Clinton supporters?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Kinda like...

Early UFC fighting, before they had rules, only more headbutts and elbows.

[MercutioATC]

4. Honestly, it wasn't this bad.

We had the DNC candidate, Gov. Dean. We had the DLC candidate, Sen. Kerry.

When Dean dropped out, it took 2 or 3 weeks, but even those of us who thought Kerry was the worst thing that could happen to our party at least gave him lip service.

I can only hope that happens this time.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Well, old friend...

I was Skype-chatting back and forth with Tace, as we worked on World News Trust today, and we are in close agreement that there are more of a few correspondents here who, shall we say, are not here for the pure joy of communing with those of a like mind on matters politique'.

If you know what I mean. I am trying to be delicate here.

Let us just say that the smell of astroturf is like a low green fog.

[MercutioATC]

7. I don't see much of this coming from "oldtimers"...although there are some.

I see (on both sides) a disagreement in both new and old timers...with a catalyst dash of "less than 1k post" members thrown in.

Yes, some of the oldtimers seem to have lost some objectivity, but I think most of the turbulence has been initiated by newer people who, in their zeal to be involved (or to disrupt) have crossed lines that a lot of us considered reasonable boundaries.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Not me.

I am quite content to continue on my merry, blissful and essentially idiotic way, as always.

Certainly you have seen that "Arguing on The Internet" graphic, no?

[bluetrain]

2. Much nicer. There was unity.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. apples and oranges

Kerry had it wrapped up before Super Tuesday.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Attention was split between the campaign, Iraq war & the shit bush was pulling.

Anymore, the Iraq war & bush have been forgotten, & it's all about the Clintons being racists or some such dripping from a dead dog's dick.

[KharmaTrain]

9. A Whole Different World

I'd say people were a lot more naive here in 2004...many of us knew how bad this regime was and thought that truth and justice would prevail...that there was no way asshat would win a second term.

GD-P was a battle between the Clarkies, Kucinichniks and Deaniacs...Kerry's support here in the early days was tepid, but gained strength as time went on.

Most important is that many of us were just grateful in those days to have some place to connect with other Democrats. The liberal/progressive blogosphere was just getting rolling and the only site that really was making any political noise was NoveOn. Repugnicans had big cash advantages and the corporate media was as much, if not more in the tank for this regime.

It was a confusing time...the Democrats were on the ropes...as the party was on the edge of oblivion...we only picked up one House seat in that election. It showed many of us how corrupt the political system was...but also, for the first time, there was a place where many of us could find common cause. Things have changed a lot in the past 4 years. Thank goodness!!!

[depakid]

10. There weren't any "closing days"

Kerry was basically the nominee in January.

And had set the stage for a losing campaign by the end of July.

[bowens43]

11. Much different now

Different circumstances and for the most part we are much passionate about the candidates. Of course, we've been at it 15 months.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Lots of fighting but it was a bit different

Skinner has said that there was more overall fighting in 2004. I think I would agree there.

To give you an idea of the landscape...

Dean and Clark were pretty popular. Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt all had some support. Kucinich had about the support he had this time around, maybe a bit more. Lieberman, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, and Graham all had very few supporters.

Most of the contention was the supporters of all of the other candidates vs Dean supporters. Some Dean supporters attacked the other candidates hard for their support of the Iraq War. They also accused the other candidates of being behind that Ad that morphed Dean into Osama Bin Laden. Some of the other candidates' supporters lashed out at Dean for what they saw as implying that the other candidates were Republicans.
Edwards was more progressive.

Now keep in mind that most of this was pre-Iowa. After Iowa, New Hampshire, and mini-Tuesday it was pretty clear that Dean was done and that it was unlikely that Edwards could catch up to Kerry. Some Dean supporters became Edwards supporters once he dropped out, arguing that Edwards was more progressive.

I was mixed between Kerry and Clark in 2004, but I was also pretty firmly Anybody But Bush. I liked Dean and I was never really bothered by his supporters (at least as much as I can remember). Put it another way, I may have fought with another candidate's supporters at one point, but never gotten particularly emotional.

2008 is a bit different at least for me. I haven't engaged in too much fighting but I have done it and it has become emotional at times. I like and respect Senator Clinton and I recognize that she's just not a hell of a lot different from Obama on policy and if she were the nominee I would gladly vote for her. I also recognize that many of my fellow Obama supporters aren't particularly well behaved and have said some nasty things about Senator Clinton. When I think it's unwarranted I try to stick up for her.

There are two particular attacks from Clinton supporters that absolutely infuriate me, though...

1) Attacks on young people. This stuff actually started on DU before the primaries and has continued through them. It actually started when Rangel proposed bringing back the draft. Many older DUers felt that mandatory national service was needed because my generation was too materialistic and self centered and that ought to straighten us out. I actually don't mind the idea of mandatory national service, but I resent being told that my generation needs it as a character building exercise. Anyways, this sort of boiled over into Obama being the flashy "American idol-candidate" and how he's shallow and only supported by stupid kids who don't know any better.

2) The argument that Obama hasn't "paid his dues". Nobody earns the presidency, they win it. It doesn't go to the next person in line, it goes to the person who gets the most votes. The sense of entitlement by some Clinton supporters really does anger me.

Some people have a very difficult time realizing that these two candidates are both decent but flawed and that rational people can support the other candidate for rational reasons.

[Redneck Socialist]

13. Sweetness and light, puppies frolicking, kittens playing...

your candidate sucks, my candidate's great.

Sort of like now.

[LWolf]

14. Some things similar, some not.

The passion of some Obama supporters mirrors the passion and energy from all Dean supporters, and they were in the majority on the board.

There were supporters for most of the rest, of course, but not in the same numbers.

It got quite heated between the Dean camps and several others.

When it became obvious, early on, that it would be Kerry, most moved their support to him. Some with regret, some not.

Dennis Kucinich stayed in until the convention, and his supporters stayed with him, as well.

Frankly, there was no battle to unify the party behind Kerry. DU, and the party, were united. The primaries did not divide the party the way the Obama and Clinton campaigns have.