Why is vicious attacking of John Edwards is perfectly acceptable to some?

[saracat]

Vicious attacking of John Edwards is perfectly acceptable to some. But even questioning positions of Hillary is viewed as "bashing? Criticisms of Edwards house , hair, family, and investments are penned in extremely vicious terms, but even asking comparing Hillary to other candidates on her positions is termed bashing.Above all do not even DARE question her record or quote her statements.This is what is called "hate".It is "hate" to indicate dislike of Hillary's flat nasal voice but perfectly fine to rip into Edwards southern accent. No one question Clinton's huge houses but they jump om Edwards.No one questions the Clinton's large speaking fees but they jump on Edwards.They always say, "But Edwards has made poverty an issue so he is a hypocrite!" Well, are you saying Hillary doesn't give a crap about poverty? If so, why would we want her as President? And if she does, doesn't this make her a hypocrite too?

Damn. I am sick of this hypocrisy.All candidates and that includes Hillary ,are allowed to be vetted and criticized.And everyone is entitled to have their say regarding every candidate.That is what free speech is about and it doesn't just apply to a favored few!

I realize that this is the Primary season and many are going to go for the throat of the opposition candidates but let us not be hypocritical with the pretense that it is only one candidate that is going to get slammed.None od our candidates are above criticism and none of them are going to be "above the fray".That is just politics" and politics is what DU is about!

[LynneSin]

1. Vicous attacking of any democratic candidate should not be acceptable

Stop telling me why I shouldn't vote for such-n-such candidate. Tell me why I should vote for yours

[sandnsea]

2. That is a bunch of bullshit

The reasons to NOT vote for somebody are just as important as the reasons to vote for someone else. There isn't a damn thing wrong with pointing out the legitimate policy failings and flat out errors of any given candidate.

[LynneSin]

7. Of course you're going to disagree and attack me

You're the person with the Kerry avatar, a candidate who has a very similiar voting record to Hillary Clinton.

And yet you're one of the clinton bashers

Sorry to point out the clearly obvious AND denounce your hobby

[sandnsea]

17. They are as different as night and day

You didn't find him talking about "stay the course" and refusing to support withdrawal until 75% of the country was on board.

Hillary is what is wrong with this party and it's shocking to me the number of DUers who have done nothing but slander the entire party for the last 6 years - just line up right behind her.

[sandnsea]

18. And I did not attack you in any way shape or form n/t

[saracat]

4. It is just the nature of the beast.This is not a tea party and supporters are not going

to wear white gloves and have party manners.Even the candidates themelves are starting to go on the attack because that is what people pay attention to. Sad but true.

[LSparkle]

3. If he isn't being denigrated, he's being outrightly ignored ... or made into a joke

That seems to be the Thugs' approach to Edwards -- they don't even acknowledge that he's in the race (they focus on Obama and HRC) and when they do talk about him, it's in a way that makes his candidacy seem like a joke. He is absolutely getting SKEWERED and it makes me wonder ... WHY ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF HIM?????

[acmavm]

39. Because he and Dennis K. are the only two dems in the whole damn

bunch.

[wyldwolf]

5. Why is vicious attacking of Hillary Clinton perfectly acceptable to YOU?

[saracat]

8. Read my post.

[wyldwolf]

11. I have. you try to make a distinction where none exists

[saracat]

15. Again some would say that.If none is seen by some it must not exist.

[Skinner]

6. News flash:

This is the way supporters of all the Democratic candidates act. If it's against you own candidate it's bad. If it's against someone else's candidate it's justified.

Just switch the names around -- your post could have been posted about any Democratic primary candidate.

[saracat]

13. That was kind of my point.It could be said for any candidate.It is just hypocrisy when each side

claims that only "they " are being discriminated against or being "victimized.I used Edwards as an example because the Hillary supporters have been quite vocal about even the slightest mention of their anointed candidate but have no qualms about attacking other candidates.But hey that is politics I guess!

[corkhead]

32. Looks like it is going to be an "interesting" primary season, huh Skinner?

This Hillary scrum is the easily the most disturbing thing I have seen come up on DU since I started lurking about 4 years ago. There is no denying the deep split amongst this herd of cats. I think everyone realizes what is at stake.

I think the sooner the primaries are over the better, and we will eventually pull back together, but unfortunately I don't see it happening before the selection of our nominee is made.

[juajen]

41. Ah, it was just as bad when we had Deaniacs, Clarkies, Kerryites, and

Edwards and Kucinich lovers. Get real people and stop whining. If Hillary was at the bottom, no one would be complaining. I believe Hillary's support on DU is still not up to par with Obama, Edwards and Kucinich; but, it is steadily improving.

BTW, I never bash other dem candidates; there are a lot of us who refuse to do that, and I'm glad. We have some wonderful candidates. We're lucky.

[saracat]

42. We are a lot luckier than the GOP! That is for damn certain.

[corkhead]

43. Now there's something we can all agree on!

[laureloak]

34. I don't attack fellow Dems, neither should any of you.

It just provides fodder for the republicans. For instance, the "Breck-girl" insult came straight from the Wes Clark blog and adopted by the thugs.

So if you want to help the other side just keep up the attack of Dems by Dems.

[madrchsod]

9. it`s just not him, it`s also hillary and obama

i figure if one attacks a candidate they better be ready to back their shit up with facts or defend their position...

[MADem]

10. It isn't. It is not 'acceptable' to viciously attack, bash, or even snidely insinuate--about any

candidate.

I do wish people would say things like "I disagree with So-and-So's stance on Such-and-such BECAUSE...." instead of pulling out bullshit like personal appearance, voice or accent, or regurgitating rightwing lies from years gone by.

But whatcha gonna do? There are people who are just fucking idiots. They don't realize that these are serious issues, that deserve reasoned discussion, and that we are going to pick our leader out of this field. Instead, they treat it like it's pro wrestling or something. It's an asinine way of approaching politics. And it's lamentable that we see so much of it here.

I'm still undecided, and I see how some partisans go after the top three with childish glee for stupid reasons. It IS disheartening, but the best thing to do is call them out about what they're doing, and ask why they can't support their candidate without bashing someone else's.

[Mythsaje]

12. Yes, but if you do THAT, no one pays the slightest attention.

It's wasted effort.

[MADem]

14. Unfortunately--it's a tiresome contact sport up in here! nt

[saracat]

16. And that is also true.And it is worse if you are the only one doing that!

[ccpup]

19. it's even sadder

when those who do a lot of the bashing claim that they're the ones taking the High Road. Oh, to spend a moment in that delusional world of theirs. Must be nice when you can do no wrong and are working for the betterment of everyone (especially your candidate).

[Stephanie]

20. Because she's a girl?

:shrug:

K&R

[AtomicKitten]

21. This reminds me of the chaos my siblings and I perpetrated --

in the back seat of our family car on long road trips with imaginary lines drawn and fisticuffs galore.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Therer are some obvious problems with Edwards, so we discuss them

"Vicious attacks" is a little overheated, don't you think?

[saracat]

25. Not for some posts .There are "obvious problems' with Hillary as well

but it seems no one is allowed to post them without being accused of bashing. All candidates should be subject to criticism.I only used Edwards as an example!

[BeyondGeography]

27. Well, you're right..."bashing" and "hating" are over-used terms around here

[saracat]

31. "Slamming and Obsessive " are also overused!

[Bitwit1234]

23. The more these people bash Hillary in favor of trying to get a

favorable of theirs, it only makes the people reading these type of posts dig in their heels and move away from their candidate. I wish you wouldn't bring this stuff up with Edwards. I like him for the job and if you start to bash Hillary in his favor the was the Obama supporters are doing and have driven people away in droves you will start to drive them from Edwards. JOHN EDWARDS DESERVES TO WIN.

Just think if bush had not stolen the 2004 election John Edwards would be vice president and on his way to being the next president....with....with an incumbent lead.

[Adelante]

24. Too often legitimate criticism of a candidate's record or actions

or policies is spun by supporters as vicious attacking or smearing of the candidate. I really hate that. But as for genuine smearing, vicious attacking, lies and calumny, there are those in any group who will do it against an opposed candidate, while pretending to be oh, so offended when it happens to their own candidate. I really hate that, too.

[ccpup]

26. exactly!

I appreciate when criticisms of candidates are backed up by facts. Not ONE poll, mind you, that shows a higher negative than every other poll or ONE right-wing nutjob on Faux saying "X is unelectable", but honest to God facts.

But senseless bashing just to express your dislike of a candidate runs counter to what a good forum should be. An exchange of information and opinions done in a respectful, humorous manner with a quick apology at the ready when things (inevitably) get heated - yes. A free-for-all with slander, attacks, you're a DLC corporate shill if you support X, Y and Z bullshit, it's true because I say it is and I'll say it repeatedly and loudly until it becomes fact - no.

[saracat]

28. "counter to what a "good " forum should be?" Thank heavens we have someone

who knows far better then our founders how to run DU.Whatever did they do without you? And a poster so flawless and of such perfection! I am sure all must bow down to such superior wisdom from a relative newcomer.

"An exchange of information and opinions done in a respectful, humorous manner with a quick apology at the ready when things (inevitably) get heated - yes"

Pot meet kettle! .

[ccpup]

33. oh well

I offer something heartfelt and reasonable and am met with ... well, whatever this is:

"who knows far better then our founders how to run DU.Whatever did they do without you? And a poster so flawless and of such perfection! I am sure all must bow down to such superior wisdom from a relative newcomer"

Oh well. I tried. And it should be plain for anyone who read without bias or malice my previous Post that I never claimed to be perfect, I never claimed to know how to run DU better and I certainly didn't ask anyone to bow down to my "superior wisdom". I simply offered both my agreement with the Poster I was responding to along with my sincere opinion of what could help DU become a better forum for the exchange of ideas, opinion and information. And that's the kind of response I get.

Sometimes you just can't win.

[saracat]

36. Perhaps a search of prior posts critcal of DU would be enlightening for you.

[ccpup]

40. good idea

I'll take a look at that.

[Rambis]

29. thugs are scared to death of him

He pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, went to college and made a fortune. He has a populist message that resonates with voters. If we pick Hillary the pugs will attack her because she is a woman. If Obama gets picked they can play the race card. The only thing they have against Edwards is this 400$ haircut bullshit!

[mitchtv]

30. It's called "new politics"

by many of the perpetrators

[classof56]

35. I just received a letter from Elizabeth Edwards.

Of course, it's a fund-raising thing, and I'm on their list because I contributed to John's campaign awhile back. Can't afford to do so again this soon, but I cannot tell you how much I admire and appreciate Elizabeth and how well I wish her. She's a woman of beauty, grace and courage. It's a long time till the primaries and the election, of course, and as my mother used to say, "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip." At this point I'm inclined to support Edwards but I refuse to denigrate any of the Democratic candidates and find myself disturbed by all the anti-whoever posts I've seen lately. I struggle against the sense of despair I feel about my children and grandchildren's future. You are right that none of our candidates will stay "above the fray" but I sincerely hope and pray one of them wins and we can, at last, have some hope of taking our country back. Whoever the Dem candidate, I will toward that end.

Blessings.

Tired Old Cynic

[saracat]

38. Beautiful response and not just because I love Elizabeth as well.

I, too, pray one of our candidates wins and takes our country back! Blessings to you as well!

[rndmprsn]

37. Amen...K&R