take heart Edwards supporters...

[k_jerome]

the more he is attacked here, the better he will do in the primaries. if, by some monumental stroke of luck, the negative attacks against him outweigh those against Senator Clinton, he will probably get the nomination. note which candidates supporters attack him in the most numbers...that candidate has an inversely proportional chance of gaining the Democratic nomination, if that candidate even has the cojones to throw their hat in the ring. the triple threat (Clinton/Obama/Edwards) will scare most of them away. you can rest assured of a few constants:

1. any poll that shows your candidate doing well, while others are in single (or negative) digits will get the old "polls mean nothing at this stage, look at Lieberman" response. this response will be used up until 3 or 4 days AFTER the convention nominates a candidate.

2. "the news media is scared of my candidate" argument. Clinton/Obama/Edwards dominate the news because they are the most interesting and they are the favorites to win. they are not covering other guys as much for a simple reason - they will not win. its like the Arizona Cardinals saying the NFL fears them because they are not on Monday Night Football as much.

3. many of the attackers will start threads with attacks, and proceed to ask "where are the supporters" to answer our constuctive inquiries. simply tell them to look on tv, my candidate is there all the time. then play a game where you try to guess what their favorite candidate looks like because it has been so long since you actually saw them.

every day, i see my chosen candidate referred to as a pig, or a whore of some kind or other. the more of these posts i see, the better i know she is doing in the real world. i don't even need polls. i just use reverse DU CW. i can tell you with a high degree of certainty which candidates will be at or near the bottom in the primaries using this system. just watch and see. and keep confidence in your man high.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Maybe the problem with Edwards is the same problem with as Hillary....

Personally, I don't care if Clark runs or not. What I will tell you is that I have nothing to lose. This is about my family.

Clark has nothing to lose, so he doesn't have to play games.

On the other hand, Hillary and Edwards have everything to lose.

Understand that.

Read this and be very clear....
It's long and it's helpful and explains why I said what I said above.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
Enforced orthodoxies and Iran
Glenn Greenwald 2/3/07
On Thursday, the neoconservative New York Sun published a remarkable article reporting on an event to be held that night by AIPAC, at which Hillary Clinton was to deliver the keynote address and John Edwards was to appear at the pre-speech cocktail party. The article made several points which are typically deemed off-limits to opponents of neoconservatism -- ones which almost invariably provoke accusations of anti-semitism when made by others.

First, the Sun noted how important AIPAC's support and financial contributions are to presidential candidates:

[k_jerome]

2. maybe its just hate the guys at the top...

all i know is that i don't see the words used to "criticize" Ms. Clinton used to describe other candidates. and i don't see such trivial crap as a mans house used for days on end to attack others.

[FrenchieCat]

6. and why should would you start this thread....

considering you are the master at this?

Hillary Clinton calling Wes Clark a War Criminal, in reference to her husband's war?

I don't know who you are, but you are not a Hillary Clinton supporters....that much I know.

[k_jerome]

13. my OP addresses the whiny attacks....

they don't call for anything to stop, or claim a moral high ground. my candidate is the leader. just watch the news. she's on all the time.

also ran candidates have to generate publicity somehow. keep posting the attacks on Clinton and Edwards. we'll still be the leaders...and all over the media. its only a bad thing when your guy is shut out.

i don't whine about the whore and pig posts. i laugh at them. all the way to the white house. but good luck with your guy...trying to picture what he looks like.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I don't post "attacks".....I post about policy stances

That's what DU is for.....

You post attacks....most which make no sense whatsoever!
Once you learn the difference between questioning a potential president's policy as opposed to making random attacks that you do, then your op will start to make sense....to normal folks.

[k_jerome]

23. my posts link to credible sources...

if they do not, my attacks correspond directly to those sources, as do many others attacks here on DU. as i said, i don't whine about the attacks on Ms. Clinton...i don't whine when she is called a DLC pig or corporate whore without links or background. my candidate is the front runner. check the media.

if you are referring to the war criminal charge, i have linked to numerous credible sources...it is a legitimate question of his history. as legitimate as your "questioning". to think your "questioning" as opposed to my "attacks" is in some way morally superior is ludicrous.

[FrenchieCat]

27. You're whining now.......

But then again...you are not a Hillary supporter.

[k_jerome]

30. no, whining is going into the...

posts and complaining about it...or accusing people of being...operatives...or eeeevil.

or posting that i'm going to alert.

but then again, you are a Hillary hater.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Actually I prefer Hillary to Edwards...Hillary has Bill on FP, and

Edwards has.....?

[k_jerome]

43. sorry, FP? nt.

[Jim Sagle]

11. Omigod, she's PROSEMITIC!!!! Whudderwee gonna dooooooo????

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Nope...our candidates are playing the NeoCon game for the money....

that's what that means.

means that whatever Bush decides to do about Iran, they won't squawk, or the money will walk.

Kevin Drum 2/3/07
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

[k_jerome]

14. ahem...thats pro zionist. please get it right...

have to use the right code words. like "New York money people."

[FrenchieCat]

21. The Sun doesn't seem to have a problem using the term....at all!

Clinton, Edwards Will Square Off At Aipac Tonight

Two of the leading Democratic candidates for president will compete head-to-head tonight for money and support from the same pro-Israel group.

Just last week, Mr. Edwards and two Republican presidential candidates, Senator McCain of Arizona and a former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, staunchly defended Israel while speaking to a conference. And Governor Pataki, a Republican who left office last month and backed away from his plans to run for president earlier this week, also is expected to make an appearance at the Aipac dinner.

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro- Israel community."

Mr. Gerstein, an adviser to Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, said that while Mr. Edwards may not be able to outmuscle Mrs. Clinton for contributions from the pro- Israel community, making an appearance at the dinner is a wise political decision.

"It's a smart move on his part to show that he's not conceding anything and that he's going to compete," Mr. Gerstein said. "Even more importantly, it's an opportunity to credential himself with an important national security constituency group."
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843?page_no=1

[k_jerome]

24. the ADL does. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

29. and?

Soooooo?

They responded to a complaint lodged by the Republican Jewish Coalition.

They looked into it, cause they respond to complaints from any Jewish group.

Looks like you should go and file a complaint with the ADL pronto!

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
Enforced orthodoxies and Iran
Glenn Greenwald 2/3/07

On Thursday, the neoconservative New York Sun published a remarkable article reporting on an event to be held that night by AIPAC, at which Hillary Clinton was to deliver the keynote address and John Edwards was to appear at the pre-speech cocktail party. The article made several points which are typically deemed off-limits to opponents of neoconservatism -- ones which almost invariably provoke accusations of anti-semitism when made by others.

First, the Sun noted how important AIPAC's support and financial contributions are to presidential candidates....

"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843?page_no=2

[k_jerome]

31. they were satisfied that Clark is not an anti semite...

which i tend to believe. they also said he had bought into institutional bigotry with his use of terms. which is absolutely true.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Well Clark doesn't think so....

and he's been getting smeared for what the NeoCon Sun spells out much clearer than anything Wes Clark has ever said.

What he said was the truth. And as usual, if you don't say what the money people want to hear, you get smeared....which is why some politicians are kissing ass as we speak.

Wes Clark is the truthteller once again; meanwhile phonies line up for the dough as they speak out of both sides of their mouth. sad.

So, according to The New York Sun (and the sources it cites): (1) financial support from groups like AIPAC is indispensable for presidential candidates; (2) the New York Jewish community of "influential" donors is a key part of the "ATM for American politicians"; (3) the issue which they care about most is Iran; and (4) they want a hawkish, hard-line position taken against Iran. And the presidential candidates -- such as Clinton and Edwards -- are embracing AIPAC's anti-Iran position in order to curry favor with that group.

If any public figure made those same points, they would be excoriated, accused of all sorts of heinous crimes, and forced into repentance rituals (ask Wes Clark). But this is what the New York Sun reported on Thursday.

As expected, Sen. Clinton matched Edwards' hard-line anti-Iran rhetoric by including all sorts of hawkish threats in her AIPAC speech:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html

[k_jerome]

36. you have a right to support what your man says....

we'll see what comes of it if/when he announces.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Don't worry about the General....cause he's doing what's right.

We don't need to attack Iran; we don't need Democratic frontrunners acting like its not a bad idea; and we don't need candidates leading who are willing to say anything to everyone for the money.

We need honesty and hard work. Not politics as usual.

So again, don't worry about the General. He's already making a difference and his words are slowing this Iran shit down.....if you haven't notice.

He's put the money grubbing politicians on notice, and they are hearing him (unfortunately for them) and so they will have to "adjust"...realizing that in the days of the Internet, you are fucked if you say one thing to one constituent, and something opposite to the other.

Wes Clark is a fucking hero.....and that's what you are working against. When he says "Duty, Honor and Country" he fucking means it! He'll get a few to open their eyes, no matter the risk to him!

His choice of songs at the DNC was "I won't back down"....and so he won't...

and I won't either. Got that?

[k_jerome]

42. it is commendable to stand for the man you believe in...

against such long odds. go 'head with your bad self.

and for info on Senator Clinton, just watch the media. She is on ALL the time.

[FrenchieCat]

44. I ain't standing for Wes Clark

as much as I am fighting and standing for myself and the future of my children.

It is just thus far, Wes Clark speaks for me.

In reference to Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards for that matter....I have already watched the media, closely since 2000....and I know exactly what they do. and in fact, I am fighting and standing against the media too. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon they've got parked in front of my house. I'm better and stronger than that. I love this country more than I would stand for any politician....that's for damn sure!

[k_jerome]

45. gotcha hard charger...

mach 2 with your hair on fire. byyyy errrt.

[FrenchieCat]

46. That would be mach 3.....

Hey....the Late Col. David Hackworth said it better about Wes Clark than I ever could.....he said,

For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim’s November issue, I’m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick – and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.

Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn’t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.

Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army’s most distinguished war heroes, says: “Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn’t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ‘em.”

I asked Clark why he didn’t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.


His response: “I wanted to serve my country.”


He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.

For sure, he’ll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game’s played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.


No doubt he’s made his share of enemies. He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he’s ripped into during the past three decades.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=35&database=Hacks%20Target.db

[k_jerome]

47. it was mach 2 when we were saying it...

i would not question Clarks credentials as a soldier.

[FrenchieCat]

48. and the fact is that his skills are transferable.....

as Hackworth noted....

"He doesn’t suffer fools easily and wouldn’t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he’s ripped into during the past three decades.

[k_jerome]

49. i suppose we part ways there....nt.

[FrenchieCat]

50. You are free to go!

[k_jerome]

51. oh, i am...

following the Senator all the way to the white house!

we will appreciate your vote in the general. election that is.

[FrenchieCat]

54. You won't need my vote....you have the media guiding the mass sheeps

and the voting machines are intact.

Me, I'm on the right side of things, so I can sleep at night....cause Wes Clark speaks for me...by standing up each and everytime, while most of the others keep their mouths shut tight....cause they know who's buttering their bread.

WESLEY CLARK SLAMS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION
"I don't think it is in the American public interest to further consolidate the media." Answering this reporter's question, the candidate said media consolidation "is damaging to putting out diverse opinions and fostering public dialogue. ... We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."
http://www.fradical.com/Presidential_candidate_slams_media_violence.htm

[k_jerome]

55. ahhh. the old masses are asses argument...

everyone is too stupid...and the whole thing is rigged anyway.

damn, if it wasn't for the refs and the other teams, my Dolphins would be in the Super Bowl.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Damn straight, the whole thing is rigged.....

Otherwise, why would you be so confident as to the outcome a year prior to any votes being cast. Just sayin'.

[k_jerome]

60. i program the machines and control the masses. all for Hillary. my masster...

in the darkness we shall bind them.

[NYCGirl]

89. FYI, the New York Sun is an ultra right wing publication. NT

[k_jerome]

15. incidentally, my OP attacked no candidates by name...

you started that. it was kinda addressed to Edwards supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

22. ;

:boring:

[illinoisprogressive]

3. You would not be so attacked if the supporters were not so mean

I try not to comment except when either my candidate is being attacked or there is a nasty tone going on.
I either comment or post an opposing article.
I do not like to do so. I am not a supporter but, I do not like to have my candidate attacked.
I never see this with other candidates supporters like the ones who support Clark, Gore, ect.
Only with the Clinton or Edwards ones.
I don't like to fight and feel we should not be one upping. I do not like to start but, I will stick up for my candidate.

[k_jerome]

4. do you read the attacks on Clinton and Edwards?

do you read what is said about Hillary? attacks on these two candidates outweigh others 10:1. and many, if not most of them are one liners about pigs or whores. i rarely see Clinton supporters whine and complain about these attacks. the same can not be said about other candidates supporters.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Personally, I have yet to "attack" Hillary......

and with Edwards, I have a few policy matters that need clearing up.

[k_jerome]

16. so posting links to articles or blogs is not an attack?

i will remember this.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Nope.....

it isn't....

Which is what you do with your drive-bys normally.

You are what you describe in your own OP.....call politicians pigs/war criminals/etc...and drop a link.

[k_jerome]

28. acknowledged...

you need to read it again though...i claim to be nothing better or worse than anyone else. just a supporter of the overwhelming leaders for the Democratic nomination.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

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

[illinoisprogressive]

8. I've never seen pigs or whores but, like I said I try to stay away unless

my candidate is being attacked. I try not to comment. I do not personally like Clinton but, I would never call her those things and feel it is beyond defending some point. If you defend a point fine. namecalling is childish.
I feel like calling Edwards a child when he calls out senators knowing how the system works. It is bluster.
But, I don't. I feel you are going below the belt and being like the freeps when the name calling goes on.
I do list my reasons for not supporting someone like, Hillary is a corporate insider but, don't feel that is name calling. that wasn't a dig but, example of when asked why.

[k_jerome]

20. if your candidate is Obama...

you'll hear no attacks from me. i did post once that i thought he would not win an election in this country...but that was more a commentary on americas racism than his own shortcomings.

[Trajan]

7. Initial assertion is a non sequitur ...

"the more he is attacked here, the better he will do in the primaries" ...

This is obviously incorrect, in that the fate of Edward's OR Hillary's OR Clark's candidacies will have nearly NOTHING TO DO with statements made for or against them in DU ....

What is true is how some here, including the original poster and those whom he refers to, have turned DU into their personal pissing grounds for degrading other Democratic Party candidates in an ultimately meaningless and useless effort to somehow improve the position of their own personal choices by attempting to lower the standing of the other candidates through insult ....

It is petty and egotistical, and I wish it would end ....

Aint gonna though, is it ? ....

Nope .....

[illinoisprogressive]

9. Trajan's post should be periodically put up to remind us of our manners.

we all get caught up but, if this was there to remind us it might raise the level of discourse.
thank you, trajan

[k_jerome]

10. it is a leading indicator...i'm doing my doctoral dissertation on it. nt.

[illinoisprogressive]

18. leading indicator of what??

[k_jerome]

25. its a little tongue in cheek. nt.

[vikegirl]

19. Go ahead, ally your self....

with wh.......?

........

[k_jerome]

32. i like pigs better. i am in iowa. nt.

[vikegirl]

33. okay. stereotype.

I'm a native Iowan. Not white. And female. You gonna type me?

[k_jerome]

34. sure...

whom do you support for nominee?

[vikegirl]

38. Much to your surprise...,

First, General Clark. Then---hold it---Hillary! Frm. Sen. Edwards is just plain......creepy to me.

[k_jerome]

41. Clark is surprising to me....

i can stereotype you as an operative , foisting a republican in Democrats clothing on us.

Ms Clinton is easier...either you are a DLC whore or a corporate pig to support her.

Edwards is a little smiley to me. He is my second choice followed closely by Obama. Lewis Black said that no one can smile that much unless they have part of their brain scooped out.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Talking about attacks......

this is what you have done all along.

baseless and mindless and sad.

[k_jerome]

53. which one? the Clark?...

or repeating your fellow supporters attacks on Clinton?

[FrenchieCat]

56. I'm my own person......so my fellows are all DUers.....

Who attacks who, I don't know....cause I seldom go into Clinton threads.

In reference to Edwards, I have my concerns, and I will voice them. That's what DU is for. period.

[k_jerome]

58. never said you couldn't...and i won't whine about it when you do...

drive on.

[FrenchieCat]

59. Will do!

:patriot:

[vikegirl]

61. Yeah, okay...

I'm an corporate "operative." Oh wait, I'm a 'pig' who had to suffered though taunts of 'You're not white!' and "Can't you speak English!"

Huh.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Don't forget that if you are smiling...then some of your brain must

have gotten scooped out! :crazy:

Don't pay poster no half a mind! ;)

[k_jerome]

65. i'm sorry, shoulda been like you...

and linked to a blog that said he supported the Bush doctrine.

[k_jerome]

64. heck, we all suffer taunts...

i just ignored them before. now, i taunt them...makes me feel better. and its fun.

[vikegirl]

66. And what race are YOU?

And are you in the majority?

[k_jerome]

67. lol. no. nt.

[vikegirl]

69. POINT.

And why are you laughing?!?!

[vikegirl]

68. Wish I could have taken so trivial.....

I am *so* weak to be have been heckled when young......Youth these days are made of IRON.

[k_jerome]

71. how young? i am talking 70's, 80's...

beginning with watching my mother treated in a disgusting manner, she was not entering this country at a good time for her race. it has galvanized and strengthened me.

[vikegirl]

63. That says it ALL. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

70. Poster who suppositely supports Hillary Clinton

only appears in 2 posts on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3093341&mesg_id=3093341

All of the posts were made very late in the game...in fact, after poster made upteen posts in this thread.

Poster IS NOT A CLINTON SUPPORTER. Poster is most likely an Edwards supporters who used to attack John Kerry, always attacks Wes Clark, and seldom defends Clinton......and never attacks Edwards.

Poster likes games.

[k_jerome]

72. i posted in that thread because i saw it just now...

you, however, like to make personal attacks and allegations. to each their own.

[FrenchieCat]

73. Thread has been up since Saturday at 1:14 p.m.

doh! :crazy:

[k_jerome]

74. i don't read every thread on the forums...

i take a quick look every now and then....what are you the post police? you are angry because i post to a credible source of allegations of war crimes under your boys watch. do you go into the multiple attack threads against Clinton or Edwards and check on those peoples post history? of course not, just me when i question your boy. are personal attacks and allegations necessary? defend your boy and attack my candidates of choice. that is good enough, no?

[vikegirl]

76. and the fact that you don't care...

makes me concerned.


Thank you, FrenchieCat, for making this relevant. Any lack of response on this part.....is lack of sleep..

[k_jerome]

75. and lets add another thing here, since you resort to personal attacks...

lots of Clinton supporters do not bother to post pro Hillary threads because they immediately degenerate into disgusting personal attacks from poster such as...well we all know. these people are attacked for their support and our candidate is attacked in a vile and personal manner. please don't pretend that you do not know this, or deny involvement in the "piling on" that occurs.

[FrenchieCat]

77. What-E-ver....

:boring:

[k_jerome]

78. yeah i know...

i see you have found another edwards post not to attack in.

you take that high road...as i said, we will appreciate your vote in '08.

[JNelson6563]

79. Thank you K-Jerome

You make some good points. Additionally, after scanning much of this thread I see you have artfully kept some of the more obnxoious rather busy. I'm always glad when those folks are fully occupied posting nonsense here at DU cause it means they are not underfoot out in the real world, getting in the way of those with real work to do.

I think it is nice of you to reach out to Edwards supporters, both he and Hillary are often under attack but it does appear Edwards gets the brunt of it here. N'ary an Edwards thread can go by without a certain group of posters jumping in to scream bloody murder. Such truly hateful behavior.

It is my hope the DU Admins will soon also grow weary of it.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

80. I am so happy that K_Jerome makes you so happy......

It's nice that everyone is so happy. I'm kinda of happy too!

Talking up war should make everyone so happy....

And since you are soooo overjoyed, Jnelson, maybe you can let me know why nothing about anything dealing with Iran, or meetings with AIPAC et al is on Happy, Happy John Edwards Happy Website? Not an article, not a video, not a picture, not audio, not a speech.

And yes, K_jerome made some mighty fine and happy, happy points.

And of course, I'm not on the East coast.....and in fact, this week, I'm not even in the U.S....so my hours are just fine...but thanks for thinking happy thoughts about me.

Stay happy now. Don't smile too much though...cause it will mean that you are missing some of your brain, according to your Happy K_Jerome.


:hi:

[JNelson6563]

81. Um whatever.

I hope you get more lucid as the day goes on. Isn't it a bit early for incoherent frenzy talk? :shrug:

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

82. Not in my neck of the woods.....

:crazy: Incoherent frenzy talk was what I was reading...

and so I responded in kind! :)

Have you had your coffee yet...cause it is impossible that you read that thread and actually enjoyed K_Jerome's non sensical posts and skipped all of the factual indication that I provided in terms of who's in bed with who in the political world?

[k_jerome]

84. Edwards and Clinton seem to swap top spots..

but remember, if you post links to attacks you claim that you are not attacking. that is the key.

[k_jerome]

86. also notice that the people that whine...

have their usernames in way more threads attacking other candidates than i do.

[spooky3]

91. I completely agree, Julie.

It's boring and tiresome, isn't it?

[Catchawave]

83. Good post kjerome !

I can smell the fear too :rofl:

:toast:

[k_jerome]

85. its not fear....its legitimate attack...er, criticism...

after all, whore or pig or coward are good constructive criticisms.

the hypocrisy is funny...attack with vigor, then whine when your guy gets a little back.

[k_jerome]

87. note usernames of those that attack the most....

they are WAY more active in smearing candidates than supporters of Clinton or Edwards. and WAY more vocal in whining when their guy gets similar treatment.

[high density]

88. Oh so you attack Clark so much because you want him to do well?

Yeah it's all coming full circle now with you. :eyes:

You're about the most professional troll on DU that I can see. Every topic you post, every response you create seems to go under the same manifesto of "I know you are, but what am I?" Can't you go back to MySpace or something?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[high density]

92. Thanks for doing your part to normalize the deficiencies across the candidates

Wouldn't want somebody else to be attacked more than the other guy.

[k_jerome]

93. thats just it....there is no normalization...

look at the front page...

how about 1/20th as much? is that ok? please let me know what ration is acceptable.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

94. Locking.

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into a flamewar. Our flameproof jackets and equiptment will not suffice in an attempt to put out the blazing flames in this thread.

thanks for your understanding
ncrainbowgrrl, gdp moderator