I want to know why, since Obama is clearly ahead, so many on DU persist in viciously trashing the

[saracat]

other candidates? I just don't understand the purpose it serves at this point.If Obama is someone's candidate of choice, why can't they celebrate his success instead of stepping on the necks of the others? I understand "defending" Obama when he is attacked, but the amount of threads started attacking Edwards and Clinton are noticable and disturbing.

I have never been a Hillary fan, yet the overblown attacks on her, based on events of little substance are hideous.My candidate is Edwards and I have seen more vitriol directed at him during the NH week than at any other time.MSM refuse to cover him yet nasty attacks are front and center on DU! I simply do not understand this.

Many Democrats are appearing as nasty and small minded as FOX NEWS. It is not a pleasant thing to see, and I say this as one who has been guilty of partisan attacks in the past.I do not claim to be "above the fray" , though I have tried.I just am flabbergasted at the volume of the sensless attacks.

[aquart]

1. Because they're uniters, not dividers.

But really because all fanatics are exactly alike.

[Adsos Letter]

4. And the whole congregation said "Amen"!

[Bicoastal]

19. Aquart, who's your candidate?

And are you going to tell me that his or her supporters are less "fanatical" (read enthusiastic) than anyone elses? More or less fanatical than Gore's a few months ago? More or less fanatical than Dean's a few years ago? More or less fanatical than Clinton's a decade ago?

Sheez.

[murielm99]

36. They are out there in the real world, too.

I am an uncommitted but active Democrat. As a county officer and precinct committeeman, I have run into more than my share of supporters for all the candidates. So have my grown children, who are active, if not activists in other Illinois counties.

From the beginning, we have been confronted by Obama supporters who are fanatical and sometimes downright mean. We don't have to commit until we are ready, but many of these people will not take "no" for an answer. We have not run into this attitude with any of the other campaigns.

Four years ago, I rode a bus to D.C. with a group of Democratic women. More than half the people were Deaniacs. And I thought I had seen unswerving loyalty then! The difference was that few of them were as rude.

I will get behind the nominee with my time, money and words. I will be tough and strong, and never give up. But this behavior is dangerous, people. It is too much like repuke and fundie wingnut behavior. It could come back to haunt us in the general, when the press and the repuke smear machine are out for blood. We need to save our big guns for them, and stop shooting at each other.

[Joe the Revelator]

2. Because its not over yet. At all.

As shown yesterday, things can still swing on a dime.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. That makes perfect sense.

[PATRICK]

17. Congrats on the big point

Without a big win Obama can slip behind the Clinton machine once more and a slide is just a slide for anyone. Hillary can thrive by coming close. That is why they are trying to drive her down fast. A wiser Obama machine might have pumped up Edwards who at best might slip by Hillary. that is hard and risky. No,
he has to seize the inevitability card just like Kerry, but his chief rivals are not gone at all, so the tack has to continue to be attack.

Kerry on that path only got testy when Edwards was still rising and testing, contesting into NY. He never had two powerful rivals close on his heels quite like this. I think this what the politics usually call for, but everyone likes to think it is personal.

[LisaM]

3. Are some of them Democrats?

I see a lot of (not all) bandwagon jumpers.

[goldcanyonaz]

5. Because they have realized that Obama is the Second Coming...

[ellisonz]

40. Anti-Clever.

[goldcanyonaz]

51. Oh, sorry, next Messiah.

[BOSSHOG]

6. I am FOR all our candidates

Our team is head and shoulders above the monsters on the other side. Smarter, more integrity, more compassion, more love of country, less zealotry, better hair.

To answer your question, I think its like a sporting event and when your team (player) is losing, one reaction might be to turn on the opponent who is causing the "losing."

I will support with gusto whomever the Democratic Party nominates for president (and with a few bucks of my measly budget.)

[surfermaw]

7. Because we want and electable candidate in November

And, it is a long time until the cows come home for the nomination, which may tie, resulting in a draft Gore.

[Bicoastal]

8. Oh come now--that's unfair.

There have been innumerable attacks, ranging from benign to vicious, from every side directed at just about everyone.

To say that one candidate is being attacked more than the other, by any particular group of supporters, is just being biased.

[SteppingRazor]

9. I agree. Though I also think the attacks on Obama have passed the point of overblown...

and crossed into genuinely stupid. But, yeah, kicking around Hillary or Edwards -- or even more laughably, Kucinich -- seems kinda pointless.

[saracat]

20. And I agree with that as well but there is a logic to attacking the front runner.

I may not agree with the logic but understand it.Attacking the ones that are behind is just mean spirited, particularly when they are "stretching" to do so!

[Ninga]

11. I must confess, it might be my fault. I posted a thread with some of Obama's

voting record, and opened the pandora's box. So I guess I will go stand in the corner.

[saracat]

24. I don't think so.These are thread starters.They are not in response to anything.

[stillcool]

28. Did you also post...

'some of' Clinton and Edwards voting records, snippets of speeches, or the varying other methods used to float shit?

[Ninga]

50. Well, must confess i didn't. Was I supposed to? It was after all, calling out to Obama

supporters Obama's record.

[stillcool]

52. there you go...

"calling out"...works about the same every time.

[Ninga]

53. just watch,, I am going to try it again.

[stillcool]

56. I'm sure you are...

"if at first"....The funny thing is that I have no 'fill-in-the-blank candidate'. Except for Kuninich, I see no difference between them. But every time I read disparaging comments posted for the purpose of propping up a favored candidate, who's records, and finances, are very much the same as the others...I feel compelled to stick up for the intended target. It has a funny way of making that candidate more appealing.

[Fresh_Start]

12. because you can't leave anything to chance

after you incinerate the body, you must piss on the remains

[bobbolink]

58. OH, phew! I can *smell* that!

Yup, that's the odor eminating from DU waaaay too often!

x(

[Hobarticus]

13. Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser...

Grossly simplistic as it is, it may be the best answer.

[Nailzberg]

14. I'd like to know why DUers continue to trash ANY of our candidates?

There has been very little discussion of differences between the candidates. There has been a ton of senseless attacks, and no side is innocent in it.

[End Of The Road]

32. Hear hear!!

The lack of substantive discussion about pros and cons of candidates' positions makes me wonder if we're as bad as the sheeple we're always criticizing.

[Cha]

59. Thank you, ya

nailed it.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Frankly, I don't think Obama supporters are being any worse than Edwards or Clinton supporters.

Just like with Clinton a while back, everyone thinks the frontrunner's supporters are being nasty, because everyone's touchy about their candidate's impending doom.

[saracat]

43. Maybe most aren't but that isn't the point I was making. The point is there is no logic to these

posts.They seem driven by malice alone.They are not in "response"I have no problem with any candidates supporters defending them, even in a partisan manner.We support who we like and defend them as well. But to just post nasty stuff out of nowhere, based on nothing, about the candidates that are behind just defies logic. For instance there was a post last night that said anyone who voted for Edwards over Obama was a racist! Whaat? That is the kind of stuff I mean.

[rox63]

16. I can't understand the attacks either

I've settled on Obama as my candidate, after giving them all consideration. I like Edwards, and I'm not too fond of Hillary. But they are all good Dems, and I could live with any one of them as the next president. It helps no one but the repukes when we bash Dem candidates.

Ok, one exception to that rule is Lieberman when he was running in 2006, 'cause he wasn't really a Dem.

[last_texas_dem]

18. Because many of them are Democrat-bashers first

and Obama supporters second, and were devoting post after post to trashing Democratic candidates long before they jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

[libbygurl]

25. Were they all genuine Democrats, I wonder? nt

[stillcool]

21. I keep on hearing about these attacks...

but I'm not seeing them. There seem to be an abundant number of posters who are highly agitated about the possibility of an Obama candidacy. I would think that if one wanted to stop the shit flinging fest, one would stop flinging shit.

[asdjrocky]

22. Very good point Sara-

I try to post very positive pieces. In a lot of them, I'd say most of them, I do not even mention the other candidates.

I honestly do not understand it.

K&R

Feel free to take a look...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/asdjrocky

[laureloak]

23. Because they are INSPRIRED.

[no name no slogan]

26. Three words: circular firing squad

[Edgeoforever]

27. I dunno, ,most bashing threads here seem directed at OBama....

:shrug:

[saracat]

38. That may be true but attacks on the frontrunner are expected.

and I understand defending Obama.I don't understand the stepping on the necks of the others at this point when it is not in response to an attack.That was my point.It seems contradictory and malicious for the sake of malice alone.It accomplishes nothing.

[ccpup]

29. oh wow

we agree on something, saracat! I laughed out loud when you wrote "I have never been a Hillary fan" but was then immediately touched when you mentioned the "overblown attacks" on her being "hideous". It's amazing to me how cruel people can be, especially if "their guy" is perceived as being "ahead".

What these supporters may or may not understand is that, in the twinkling of an eye, the media can turn their vitriol away from the wounded gazelle that is presently Hillary and onto the roaring tiger that is currently Obama. And then we'll see how well the tiger handles the assault.

The gazelle -- strong as they always are -- will heal and sprint past the finish line (perhaps). But the tiger's roar might not be as deafening as before and, if that's what he's relied on to bloody his enemies and stand at the top of the heap, it might be more difficult to continue doing that while blinking in the blinding glare of a hungry pack of snarling, vicious reporters and talking heads.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

How do you know that all the attacks are from Obama supporters? nt

[saracat]

39. I don't know that they are.I just don't understand the point of the posts.

Some identify themselves as Obama supporters but who knows? Again, that isn't the point.The logic of these posts escapes me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. Are you suggesting that only Obama should be attacked because he's ahead? nt

[saracat]

44. No.I am saying I understand the logic of attacking the frontrunner.It always happens

as the others attempt to knock him or her down.I don't understand attacking those that are behind it makes no sense.There is a tradition that the frontrunner does NOT attack in politics and it is a reasonable contention.The frontrunner doen't need to acknowledge or give the opposition any press or attention.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. Edwards and Clinton are still very viable at this point, despite Obama being ahead

So it makes sense to me that people are attacking them, not that I don't find many of the attacks to be highly disagreeable.

[Snotcicles]

30. Gang mentality. nt

[Perry Logan]

31. It's the taste of blood, as the race gets interesting.

[Egnever]

33. Poll after poll here shows this is Edwards underground

If you think his supporters are any better than any of the others I think you are looking at it with a particular bias.

There are plenty of threads bashing every candidate it isn't limited to any one candidates supporters and by singling out Obama you inadvertently bash his supporters with your please don't not bash post.

Its the primaries and its ugly you know that though Sara you were here last time around. You aren't going to change it with pleas for sanity. it will be over soon enough and we can get back to our repuke bashing very soon.

[debbierlus]

34. Two states does not an election make. And, I can't stand Obama

You can go to my journal to read my reasons.

I don't trust him. I don't like him. I firmly believe he is another corporate shill cleverly repackaged for the mood of the
country.

[melody]

35. Forgive the anthropological tilt on this, but it's primate behavior

The more simplistic primates going to war behind the Alpha. Everyone else gets stomped down as being
unbelievers.

[TooBigaTent]

37. Maybe they (we?) are acting like that to hopefully show our party's politicians

how to act once the GE comes around.

If past history (and present rhetoric) is any indication, our nominee will be running a kumbaya-happy-happy campaign and respond weakly, if at all, to the attacks that will come from the repugs.

[David__77]

41. Good god, it's called a CAMPAIGN.

Highlighting points of distinction and the negative attributes of one's opponents is what campaigns are all about. That said, I hope Obama doesn't just win, but wins by a total and complete landslide.

[saracat]

45. That fine.As I said it is just that traditionally the front runner does not attack the opposition

so as not to garner them any attention or press.Attacking those that are behind does NOT make sense.And it seems a weird version of campaigning and not to the benefit of the front runner.

[David__77]

46. There is no national front runner.

This isn't just about New Hampshire, even if it is true what you say about not attacking when in the lead.

[saracat]

47. That may be true but Obama is perceived as the frontrunner because

of his "momentum" and the caucus and probable primary win.I agree it isn't just about NH or Iowa for that matter but you would never know that by the MSM!

[redqueen]

49. It is BEYOND bizarre.

But whatever... all is fair in love and war... and this is a type of war, I suppose.

[Thrill]

54. Its in response to the people who attack Obama

Thats exactly what it is.

[saracat]

55. But some are definately NOT Obama supporters! And these are NOT responses to attacks.

That was my point.

[frogmarch]

57. K&R Same here, saracat. I totally agree with you. nt