A gentle suggestion to supporters of "A" that slam "B" repeatedly

[Vickers]

I can't speak for everyone, but TO ME your anti-"B" posts carry a *little* less weight when you still have that picture of "A" as your avatar.

:P

Pump up your "A" candidate all you want, tell me why they are the best, CONVINCE ME BABY!

Just lay off "B" for a little while, huh?

[aquart]

1. Hey, with the avatar at least they're admitting their choice.

What I really despise are the attacks by partisans who will not admit it.

[Vickers]

2. I considered that.

I reckon there is some honor in the former.

But not much.

[Benhurst]

3. And at some point we are all going to have to get behind the nominee.

Alienating large blocks of the Democratic electorate doesn't make much sense to me.

[Vickers]

4. I agree. I've seen some (half-serious?) posts here stating that

if "A" (for example) gets the nomination, they will refuse to vote.

That's nuts.

I'd rather see "A" show up at the White House on angel dust than *any* of the Republican candidates stone sober.

[Tesha]

12. Who says? Sorry, but CT 2006 changed all that for me. (NT)

[Benhurst]

17. I wish everyone had gotten behind the nominee in CT. I guess

you are referring to those "leaders" who went with LIEberman. I agree with you about them.

[Tesha]

18. Yes.

> I guess you are referring to those "leaders" who went with
> LIEberman.

Yes. I wrote a longer exposition in another reply this
morning, and just made a "shorthand" reference here.

Tesha

[bvar22]

20. Those people have a POWER/MONEY agenda

that supersedes Party or Issues.
It has led to the destruction of BOTH Political Parties.
Neither represents the American citizenry any longer, but are merely vehicles to achieve the POWER/MONEY goals. Nader was more RIGHT than wrong.

Bread & Circuses

[Exultant Democracy]

26. You got that right. Support the nominee, unless it is the wrong nominee.

The DLC did an end run on us, I'm not going to play their game anymore.

[AZBlue]

5. I couldn't agree more.

As I've said before on this board, don't tell me why you're against a candidate, tell me why I should vote for your candidate.

[Quixote1818]

6. Well, he did write the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia bill for

Religious freedom. He was a product of the Enlightenment and a free thinker. He had a big impact on separating church and state!

How is that for pumping up the candidate in my avator? :+

[rinsd]

23. Tanned, rested and ready huh?

:-)

[Bitwit1234]

7. The constant swift boating by Obama supporters of Hillary Clinton

had the opposite effect. I was all for Edwards. When he couldn't come up in the polls I thought it would be between Obama and Hillary. But the type of nasty bashing attacks on Hillary by the Obama supporters have made me think, if he attracts those type of supporters what would he do as president. So if my boy Edwards doesn't pull up soon I am going over t9o Hillary....I still hope Edwards gets it, but right now it doesn't look like it. He is a hell of a candidate. It is a shame.

[emilyg]

8. I used to support Obama - but for the same reasons don't anymore.

[ellacott]

11. The same thing is being done by HRC supporters, amazing that you all don't see this

I have seen some very disappointing and juvenile things posted by the HRC supporters against Obama.

There seems to be such a lack of honesty regarding this.

Both sides are wrong but people on the see the things done to "their" candidate.

[karynnj]

13. The Hillary supporters have not been as innocent as the driven snow on this

They have attacked the other candidates. There is no counterpart I know of that Obama supporters have for the nasty Hillary is 44 site.

I could say that my opinion of Hillary was ruined by the actions of her supporters - but it wasn't, it was determined by her own actions and inactions - like putting her political needs above speaking out to change the Iraq policy in 2006. The first time I saw many of her supporters is when they appeared here attacking, not Senator Kerry, but all of his supporters at a time when we were posting information and defenses of Senator Kerry, rather than attacking anyone else.

Even then, their main riff was that only the Clintons could fight the RW - so the rest of us should shut up. They also pretty much forced people to list some of the less appetizing baggage as they claimed Hillary came with none, because everything had been proven false. (A statement that is much truer if applied to Kerry.) This weekend, Bill Clinton pretty much said the same thing as these supporters did - that anyone criticizing Hillary is helping the right wing. Note, he did not say something like anyone repeating untrue smears against any other Democratic canddiate is helping the right wing. After all his wife called Obama naive for a strawman version of what he actually said.

It has been the Clinton people who have posted every right wing attack on Obama and many on Edwards. This coupled with the obvious arm twisting by the Clintons.

[ellacott]

25. I read some of their stuff and shake my head

That hillaryis44 is really a nasty site. I would never want that site to represent me if I were a candidate. There are some posters here who are proud of this site and link to it often.

They have issues with Obama because he's HRC's closest competitor. Most didn't even know who he was until he declared.

I am so surprised to see the kind of attacks that go on at DU. It's very childish.

[karynnj]

27. Also very counterproductive

It demoralizes those of us without a candidate we are 100% committed to - always pointing out more negatives. I know what it has done for me - I volunteered to do some phoning for this year's election a week or so ago. One talkative woman, after answering questions on who she leans to said she wanted 2008 to come because a woman was less likely to go to war. It took all of my disciple to say - " You know all the Democrats are more for leaving Iraq than all the Republicans - and the difference is huge. The difference is not male/female, but for the most part Democrat / Republican. Hillary is actually the least anti- war of our candidates." Having said that, I realized why I should not be calling at this point - the local Democratic headquarters is certainly not committed to any 2008 candidate, and I likely should not have said that.

(I do however pride myself on NOT saying what first rushed to my head - which would have been more anti-Clinton.)

[Apollo11]

15. I think it's unfair to judge a candidate on their supporters

No candidate has any way of knowing or influencing what his/her supporters post here on DU.

You have no way of knowing for sure who here is an Obama supporter (or who is maybe trying to give Obama supporters a bad name by acting like an a$$hole).

All an avatar says is who I would like you to believe I support.

In my case - Mr Spaceman! ;-)

[Vickers]

19. That's another point I considered before posting this. I *know* I shouldn't

judge on these supporter actions that a candidate can't control, but I almost can't HELP it.

A failing on my part, true, and one I readily admit to, but there you have it.

I had not thought about super-troopers actually being for the other person (and playing into my own failing mentioned above). I do have my suspicions occasionally that there are some super-liberals around here who are actually super-repukes trying to stir the pot (and if they are obvious enough I alert on 'em).

[saracat]

21. It is amazing that anyone who once supported Edwards could even 'consider" supporting Hillary

when she is not only the polar opposite of everything he stands for but the swiftboating her "team" of supporters has done to Edwards is deplorable.You are correct that he is a "hell of a candidate". If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, it will not be a shame it will be a disgrace.

[rinsd]

22. Not really. Edwards 2004 was a different candidate than Edwards 2008.

[youthere]

24. Well, if it's any consolation to you saracat...I am absolutely convinced..

that Edwards will take Iowa.

check out this thread in the Iowa forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=152x18984

unanimously Iowa DU'ers predict Edwards to win...and for the record, only one is an Edwards supporter (and it isn't me)

[LWolf]

9. I've deliberately not put a candidate as my avatar this time around.

I deliberately, a couple of months before any candidates "announced," and through the first several months of primary wars, stated in my sig line those who would not earn my vote in the ge should they choose to run.

My point being this: If you don't want to nominate "my" candidate, fine. Just don't give me a corrupt corporatist candidate. Give me someone who will do something besides spout noble rhetoric that goes nowhere. Give me someone who will put the needs of people ahead of their careers, ahead of the demands of corporations and special interest groups. SOMEONE WHO HAS A RECORD OF DOING SO ALREADY, PRIOR TO THIS SEASON'S CAMPAIGN RHETORIC. Or don't expect my vote in the GE.

It's no surprise that I should say I oppose candidates that I said I wouldn't support before they ever announced. It's sad, or amusing, or both, that sometimes the supporters of those candidates don't know how to respond. They don't want to respond to the real criticism of their candidate; they just want to come back with "well, your candidate can't win, so there. Nyah, nyah, nyah."

That's the response of someone who can't defend the point, because it's indefensible.

I would love to convince you. Do you care about issues, or are you just fascinated by the political process and the campaign machinations?

I'll discuss candidates on issues, and I'll pass on candidates who have failed the issues test.

As far as my candidate goes, anyone frequenting a democratic political board who really needs someone to explain why HR 676 is better than allowing health insurance companies to remain "at the table," why preemptive war is not a good idea, why we need to get out of Iraq NOW, why NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO should be anathema, why the constitution should be vigorously protected and defended, and why the bush administration should be held accountable for its crimes might be beyond my help.

[Vickers]

10. Great post, thanks.

I could live the rest of my life without hearing about cackling or how bad someone smells in the morning or the price of haircuts etc. etc.






(full confession: I do think DK's wife is pretty...sue me) :P

[Stop Cornyn]

14. Leaving aside the presidential race for a moment, in making fund raising calls in the Texas Senate

race for an "eventual nominee" fund, I've heard from several Texas Democratic fund raisers that they are putting their money into other states' Senate races and in various Texas Legislature races instead of the Texas Senate race. When I ask why, most people mention some distorted half-truths they have heard about both candidates. When I ask them where they got this misinformation, they invariably refer to one or another Texas political blog.

Here's the kicker: even after I direct these usually very reliable Democratic contributers to the correct and accurate information, they are still not interested in contributing to the either candidate or the eventual nominee fund in the Texas Senate race because they have sour feelings about both candidates due to the misinformation about the candidates spread on the internet.

This process of Democrats tearing down Democrats in the primary is counterproductive.

[Apollo11]

16. What you have there is empirical proof that fighting dirty in the primaries harms the whole party.

Please, people - let's try and be nice to each other in the last quarter of 2007! B-)