Sound Familiar?

[NanceGreggs]

Anyone who supports Hillary also supports the interests of corporations, wants a Republican-lite in the White House, and is too dumb to recognize that she will ruin the country. It is not possible that they see in her a savvy, sophisticated fighter who is ready, willing and able to do the right thing by all Americans – and if they do, they just don’t see the big picture. Besides, she is NOT electable, because she’s a woman.

Anyone who supports Obama is easily swayed by a no-substance double-talker who lacks the experience and gravitas to lead a nation. It is not possible that they see in him a true visionary who sees what the nation could be, and is eloquent enough to inspire the many to move towards meaningful change – and if they do, they just don’t get it. Besides, he is NOT electable, because he’s black.

Anyone who supports Edwards is totally blind to his hypocrisy, and willfully ignorant of the fact that he’s wealthy and therefore doesn’t care about the plight of the poor or the working-class. It is not possible that they see in him a man who is on the side of the American citizen when it comes to taking on the greed of corporations, and their undue influence on our government – and if they do, they just don’t understand what’s at stake here. Besides, he’s NOT electable, because he’s rich.

Sound familiar? It should – because this kind of meaningful discussion is posted here every day, day-in/day-out, 24/7, without fail.

Please excuse me for not seeing things your way – I had this crazy idea that I was allowed to decide things for myself.

Please forgive me for not being swayed by your rhetoric – I stupidly believed that I was entitled to my own opinion, and didn’t realize I had to defer to yours, because you obviously know everything.

Please ignore my obvious political ignorance – I foolishly thought that I was supposed to look behind the soundbyte quotes and judge them in the context in which they were proferred. I completely forgot that I should shun any investigation into the latest “news” stories in order to determine if they were fact, semi-fact, or out-and-out fiction. I admit that, like the idiot you seem to think I am, I should just accept your version of events – in the same way I should accept the MSM’s version of what just happened, what it means, and why I should base my support on what everyone else thinks instead of what I think.

Honest Question: Which candidate do I support right now?

Honest Answer: Does it matter?

No matter who I support, I will be told by many of you here that I am an idiot who doesn’t see the big picture, doesn’t get it, doesn’t understand what’s at stake here.

Do I sound pissed-off? Well, I should, because I AM – big time. This site should be a place for intelligent discussion, and an opportunity to exchange ideas – not only on our current candidates, but on the current state of affairs in our nation as a whole. What it has become is – well, something else again.

The minute I see a thread that says (outrightly or in more couched, subtle tones) “Do what I do, believe what I say, vote as I will vote because I know better than you do”, all I hear is the arrogance of someone saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you are an idiot!”

And guess what? In my world, I care about what I think – and what you think matters not at all.

Again, I express my sincere mea culpa for having the audacity to think for myself, to support the candidate of my choice rather than the candidate you've TOLD me I should support - and for having the unmitigated gall to say so.

I guess that makes me an idiot to some. But better an idiot with her own opinion than the kind of sheeple we've all been ranting against for years now -- you know, the ones who just believe what they're told by those who "know what's best", instead of thinking for themselves.

[JeffR]

1. .

:popcorn:

[NanceGreggs]

2. Shove over ...

... you're in the smoking section, like it or not.

:popcorn: :smoke:

[Jamastiene]

45. Well, scoot over. Make room for me and my Pall Malls too.

:popcorn:

[ronnykmarshall]

55. Smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

[ClayZ]

73. Puff

:smoke: :popcorn:

American Spirits

[vi5]

3. Thank you. I agree 100%

Do these people on here honestly think they're convincing ANYONE of ANYTHING?

[The Doctor.]

76. Oh no...

I'm totally convinced. :smoke:

[SeattleGirl]

4. This idiot with her own opinion applauds you, Nance

Lately this board reminds me more and more of a group of school kids on the playground, making faces at each other, sticking their tongues out, throwing rocks, and even kicking others.

Sheesh.

People can support who they want; but people turning on those who DON'T support their particular candidate need to grow up.

[NanceGreggs]

6. I now realize that I wasted a LOT of words saying ...

... what you just summed up in one sentence:

"People turning on those who DON'T support their particular candidate need to grow up."

Amen.

[grizmaster]

22. well said

[patricia92243]

5. You have voiced my feeling exactly! I wil be soooo glad when the primaries are over and we will not

be allowed to bad-mouth our nominee. Sigh!

[panader0]

7. Amen. I didn't join DU until '05 so I missed the last presidential election

When I got here, bushco, not each other was the enemy. Issues like THE WAR, Abramoff, scandals, and so much more great stuff bashing the republicans were what was on the menu. It's been really silly around here lately. K/R

[Eurobabe]

42. Aww, sorry you missed all the "fun"

:sarcasm:

[Duncan Grant]

8. I'm so weary of the "cheerleaders for Jesus" that I can't stand it.

Honestly, how many people does it take to bludgeon someone onto a bandwagon. x(

[7horses]

9. Why it matters for all of us,

I agree that any one of the Democratic candidates would be better than the other party. But here is the problem. The media is picking the nominee for the Democratic party. The media is throwing support behind the two weakest candidates; that will have a hard time beating the Republican nominee, which ever one of the Bush clones win. Wake up people! The media sure did a job on Edwards... now I wonder why the media is pushing only the top two candidates? I don't believe those polls, but something is wrong when Edwards polls at 27% and only gets 4% of the vote! Can they be off that much? If so, then 'they' need to be held accountable. Lets do away with polls!!!

Anyway, Edward will stay in the race.

Oh, and congratulations to Hillary.

[Yuugal]

10. K&R

[avrdream]

11. You go, girl!

The most common button I am pressing on DU these days is the one that hides threads. Please tell me that it will get better - I wasn't around DU in the last primary so I don't know but this has been very painful.

Recommended, as usual.

[NanceGreggs]

13. I wasn't here during the last primary either ...

... I guess I just wasn't prepared for the garbage-spewing, dumpster-diving, I know everything and you know nothing rhetoric.

[knight_of_the_star]

63. It did last time

But last time no one pushed it to such depths.

[lala_rawraw]

12. you go!!

i tried this experiment last night and my thread was locked... let's hope this does better, and it is far better put together... thanks for posting:)

[NanceGreggs]

14. Thanks for weighing-in, lala_rawraw ...

... I really DO appreciate your input!

:patriot:

[classof56]

15. Well said. I just remarked to my SO awhile ago...

I'm about ready to give up on DU--too much meanspirited and divisive rhetoric floating around, OPs and posts seriously dissing the candidates. NOT what I thought we are about! You helped lift my spirit and my hope. Thanks. DU has been my refuge the last few years and damn, I'd hate to give it up!

Tired Old Cynic

[Sparkly]

16. Yay!!!

:applause:

:kick:

[Kucinich4America]

17. Vote Kucinich!

:kick:

[NanceGreggs]

19. I LOVE Kucinich ...

... and believe he's raised the political discussion to what it should be instead of dissolving into what it traditionally is.

I think Hillary is the kind of take-no-prisoners spitfire we need to fight the GOP, and then some.

I adore Obama, and share his vision of what American could be if we dare to dream, and put action behind fulfilling those dreams.

I admire Edwards' passion, and his ability to focus on the facts that back-up every word he's ever said.

If MY first choice turns out to be not everyone else's first choice, I can live with that. Because that's what democracy used to be all about.

Hearing the statement, "Ladies and gentlemen, the DEMOCRATIC president of the United States ...," is enough for me.

But don't take my word for it - I'm just another IDIOT who thinks a Dem in the White House is a step in the right direction.

[madamesilverspurs]

18. The choir sounds so much sweeter

when the voices work together to achieve harmony, yes? After all, the baritones aren't supposed to sound like the sopranos. . .

[varelse]

20. Thank you from a Kucinich supporter who understands and accepts

that other progressives could support another candidate without being a "sexist" or a "bot" or an "idiot" or a "racist" or a "shill" or a "closet freeper" or a "reagan worshipper" or whatever.

What you all think does matter to me, and it matters alot, or I wouldn't participate in this forum at all - but the tone of it lately makes me wonder if mutual respect and open, frank discussion of the issues has been suspended here for the duration of the primary :(

[NBachers]

21. You Got It, Nance

I'm actually spending less time here. I skip over the obvious candidate zealot entries because I just can't wade through the crap that's thrown at me if I don't feel exactly the same way. Yeah, I know, extreme times call for extreme measures; I'm proud and overjoyed at the wealth of excellent candidates we have; and everyone who's promising not to vote if XXXX gets the nomination can go fuck themselves.

[Armstead]

23. I usually like your posts, but I disagree with you on parts of this one

I don't believe posts should get personal, as in "You support (Fill in the blank) so you are an idiot."

But otherwise, I do believe that it is preferable to have passion that might get carried away than to be so open-minded that true conviction gets dissipated.

Frankly, I believe that the search for truth is better served by passionate debate over things that matter.

[NanceGreggs]

24. I'm all for passionate debate ...

... what I'm NOT FOR is passionate debate that tells me if I don't agree with the passionate debater, I'm wrong - because he/she is so obviously right.

There is a world of difference between someone who says, "This is why I believe in so-and-so," and, "This is why you're an ill-informed, delusional jerk if you don't believe what I believe."

It's a line that's been crossed here, over and over - to the detriment of the political process, and the detriment of the kind of discussion this site should be about.

Feel free to tell me why you think your choice of candidate is a wise choice - just don't tell me how, if I choose otherwise, my opinion is somehow less valid than yours.

[Perry Logan]

25. Each of us should try to stop whupping Democrats for at least one day a week.

[Beausoir]

28. I did! 9 days ago I quit bashing other Dems here on DU. Life is much better this way.

[Joe Fields]

26. If you don't care what we think, then that makes you no better than

many of us here. In other words, you've just joined the club.

[tavalon]

27. Oh my God!

I want to have like, a hundred of your babies! I can honestly, truly say, that (until the next time. With you, there is always a next time) I have never seen anything better from you. Thank you.

Before I stopped reading all of this crap, I kept saying to the screen, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" but your rant actually gives words, eloquent words, to what's happening here. That I've seen it here before and that I know what happens afterward just isn't softening it anymore for me. But this was salve. Thank you. Between you and JeffR and EarlG, I really, really do think I can make it through primary season.

And, on a personal note, if I find out soon who are candidate is, I'll know how much time I will have available for something local. I've been asked to become one of my union reps. I'm so tempted, but I need to know how much help our national candidate is going to need from me. I don't want to overextend myself and get sick or not be there for my family.

[Bondor]

29. I hope

I hope the Obama and Clinton folks are right, because probably one of them is going to win the nomination. I fear that Clinton may have been bought by massive contributions from big pharma and weapons companies. But maybe she will shrug them off and be idealistic. I fear that Obama may try for bipartisanship in a way that sells out Democratic ideals -- because compromise with an uncompromising adversary leads to loss after loss, as we have seen in recent years. But maybe he will prove to have a spine of steel when the chips are down. I fear that neither will attempt to hold current administration criminals to account for law-breaking, because they do not want to upset Repugs.

I do believe that Edwards is the only one who gives voice to my outrage, and who will act as it indicates, and as I believe honest democratic principles dictate. And I think that criminal prosecutions are the ONLY way for us to reclaim any moral authority in the world and the ONLY way for our government to return to the rule of law. I think Edwards might do it. I think Obama and Clinton won't.

I hope I am wrong.:grouphug: :grouphug: :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

48. Welcome to DU, Bondor...

What you said precisely echoed what I wrote here earlier today. I too hope I'm wrong and that America isn't making a BIG mistake.

[rasputin1952]

30. FWIW...I too am tired of those who preach...

what "is really happening", and it is indeed a little too much for me. I have no candidate at this time, no one, except Richardson and Kucinich have seriously talked about issues. Richardson is no longer running, and Kucinich, while having a possibility of becoming the nominee, in all reality will not be the D nominee.

As for the R's....really, they have absolutely nothing. I live in Nebraska, it is about as GOP as one can get, and if I had the market on crying towels, I'd never have to work again. I've never seen the R's quite literally, as despondent as they are right now. They counted on Rudy...no go; they counted on Thompson to be a Knight on a White Horse...he came in riding a gray hamster, and that died under him. Romney...say what one will, the R's will not elect a Mormon. Huckabee...his religious talk will get him crucified. They have nothing, no ideas, no platform, no sense. When I see the R's on stage, I can see a visual of sacrificial lambs.

I do not know who the D candidate will be, whomever it is, I will support them. I truly believe that unless the D candidate completely folds under pressure or something catastrophic happens, be it illness or death...we cannot lose.

There is never a perfect candidate. All we can do is choose one by what their records are, and how we perceive them as potential leaders. There will always be flaws, but we need not dwell on the superficial flaws one possesses, we need to see where strengths are, what will the best we can choose do to put this country back on track. And this is not just an election for president, it is an election that will need good D's in Congress...Men and women that will do what is right, not what is popular, or worse yet, things that are just plain stupid. The first congresscritter that brings up a call for a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, or a Constitutional definition of marriage, should be dragged out of the respective chamber and be given a shovel to clean out the DC PD horse stables.

So when we look at the election that is finally coming in November, we need to be a unified fighting force, determined to ensure that this nation be returned to the people, by the people. Even the R's will thank us for bringing this nation back to at least some semblance of sanity.

When all is said and done, it comes down to all of us to ensure that the bush "legacy" dies a quick, but painful death. We must show not just ourselves, but our children and the world, that this nation is a just and decent nation, a beacon of freedom and tolerance...and the likes of bush and his absurd and disastrous ways will never again darken the skies of the world.

Thank you all for allowing me my little rant.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Way too good to be a post here ...

... this should be its own thread.

Please? Too well said to languish here, my friend ...

[rasputin1952]

35. LOL...If I want it to be seen...I put it in your thread...

:loveya:

[NanceGreggs]

46. Ahh, I am flattered ...

... but in NO WAY dissuaded from my initial opinion!

Your reply SHOULD BE a stand-alone discussion thread.

:loveya: Right back at ya!!!

[LandOLincoln]

66. Agreed. I especially liked the "...riding a grey hamster, and that died

under him." LOL! What an image!

[Roland99]

56. I am truly humbled to have read that. Excellent post.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. All true, but this is FREE publicity for candidates with DEVOUT (amateur) followers.

So it is probably inevitable that there will be a gazillion posts saying "Your candidate has cooties!" "No, your candidate has cooties!"

What bothers me most is when people here parrot the talking points that the corporate media has created. I have to wonder if they are 1) Naive, in which case it is the job of those of us with more experience to educate them or 2)Being willfully ignorant, because it suits their purposes, in which case they are rat bastards who are no better than the media whores who spread the lies.

[NanceGreggs]

33. Pardon me for asking ...

... but how do you distinguish between the true followers and the amateur followers, or the naive you need to educate, or the willfully ignorant who speak only to suit their own purposes?

I'm truly curious as the criteria to be used ...

[unc70]

50. NG, Not who you asked, let me give you my version and why.

While these aren't quite my categories, they are close enough for me to work with:

True followers are those who have chosen a candidate after considerable evaluation, know their positions, their strengths and their weaknesses, and will probably stick with them for quite a while.
Every candidate has true followers.

Amateur followers know less about their candidate and their positions, often responding on feelings, not facts. Don't follow politics closely, might have candidate's position completely backward, but when told the truth they do an "Oh, OK." and continue on. I am surprised the number of these on TV.

Naive would include those whose age, geography, or experience limit their view of some event, candidate, or concept. It is nearly impossible for anyone under 30 to comprehend life before 1960. I try to give them a sense of how things were for me: barely electricity, no bathroom (outhouse), several miles to a paved road, further to a telephone, no television, segregation, many AA friends and neighbors.

Willfully ignorant could be those with their heads in the sand, but at DU those would be the poster who makes some assertion which is soon disproved with solid evidence but you see them repeat the same bogus claims in another thread within another hour.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

34. Sounds all TOO familiar! Thanks, Nance

:applause: :toast: :toast: :applause:

[ruggerson]

36. I agree, but think there are legitimate criticisms of our candidates

Some people legitimately can't get past Clinton or Edward's IWR vote. I can understand that.

Some people legitimately can't get past Obama's "unity" theme or the McClurkin mess. I can understand that.

What is the key is HOW you communicate that to someone.

There are ways of saying you disagree without using ad hom invective.

There are ways of saying you disagree without irrationally and viciously tearing down the candidate you do not support.

I have gotten pissed off at times and crossed the line. Many of us have.

But when we constantly attack the CHARACTER of the candidate we don't support, we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot.

Good post, Nance, thanks.

[Silent3]

38. What I can't get past is people so absolutely unable to get past...

...any of this stuff -- IWR, McClurkin, the latest supposed nasty remark on the campaign trail, etc. -- that they say that they wouldn't vote for any one of our Dems in the general election.

I hope I can voice my problem here constructively, but it does get my ire up when people refuse to see the VAST difference between ANY of the Democrats in our current slate vs. any of the Republicans, that they would petulantly exalt whatever concerns they have, legitimate or not, over the good (even if in their eyes it's no better than a lesser-of-two-evils good) of the country, which desperately needs a Democrat, any of our Democrats, to win this next election.

It's hard for me to hide that I really, really see the "I'll never vote for (fill in Dem here)!" attitude as a failing of logic about how elections work, as a failing of understanding of the magnitude of the consequences, as an impatience with detail and nuance where people confuse strident stands on single issues as being some sort of noble stand on principle, a stand that must be taken regardless of consequence -- as if it's the duty of the world to divine the meaning of the vote they didn't cast, or that they symbolically cast for some obscure third-party candidate or ridiculous write-in, and as if it's the duty of the world to suffer for 4-8 years learning the oh-so-valuable lesson of not providing a candidate sufficiently wonderful and pure enough to please them.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Not shock ...

... just awe.

:applause:

[ruggerson]

41. Completely agreed

I think the "I'll never vote for... " crowd is narcissism gone wild. It's people more focused on themselves and their ultra progressive bona fides than they are with what's good for the country.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Thanks, ruggerson!

The point is that I don't mind someone attacking my candidate - what I mind is being attacked for supporting my candidate!

[ruggerson]

47. Yep

and unfortunately we're swamped with those kind of posts.

[Mythsaje]

49. Come to think of it, that's what's been pissing me off.

When an issue arises that concerns me, I address it. It infuriates me when people accuse me of being "intellectually dishonest" because I dare to criticize their candidate or his/her spokespeople. I keep hammering the issues that bother me, and people respond by hammering ME.

Oh, I'm as pissed off as you are, believe me.

[BattyDem]

37. Thank you!

:applause: :toast: :applause: :toast: :applause:

I haven't been spending much time here in recent weeks because of all the "you're an idiot if you don't support my candidate" posts. The 2004 primaries were bad, but this time it's just ... nuts. I can't believe the amount of anger and contempt directed at fellow DUers simply because they like (or don't like) a particular candidate. Does anyone truly believe that they'll win supporters for their chosen candidate with insults and tantrums? :shrug: Just because you like and respect one particular candidate, that doesn't mean you have to despise the others.

Folks, lighten up. After all, it could be a LOT worse ... our roster of candidates could look like the GOP's. :P

[rasputin1952]

39. At least we'd pick fresh veggies from the bin!...

The R's picked theirs from the "week old" veggie bin...:D

I still find it difficult to believe that there were huge expectations for Thompson...of the bunch, he and Guiliani have to be the most increbibly poor examples for candidates I've ever seen. It's like watching a bad scary movie...a ghoul and the creature from Black Lagoon...:D

[Eurobabe]

44. thank you Nance.

:applause:

[acmavm]

51. Well, now that we've heard what YOU think (again) is it all right with you

if people go back to posting what THEY think?

[NanceGreggs]

59. I'm sorry you missed my point ...

... which is that people should be posting what they think, without being insulted by those who think differently.

Calling another poster an idiot because they don't agree with your choice of candidate accomplishes nothing of value. I doubt that anyone here is going to be 'insulted' into seeing things differently.

[prairierose]

52. Thanks Nance...

for another post that is spot on. I get so tired of people talking or screaming at others for having their own opinion or ideas. In the US that I grew up in that was ok. In this new US that has been created having your own ideas is not ok. You are supposed to have the ideas that the corporate media feeds to you; having swallowed them whole.

I'm just not good that following blindly thing.

[Fabio]

53. Edwards hippocracy has nothing to do with $, but votes versus words

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

54. Brava!

[Pathwalker]

57. "You should be ashamed for NOT being ashamed of your choice"

At least five different posters have said this to Hillary supporters, and some of them were women.
Do they actually think this will work on grown women, or that it in anyway will help their candidate?
Penises forbid that a woman should think for herself.

:kick:

[F.Gordon]

58. If I had to make a candidate choice based on DU

I'd either become Swiss or move to Overmedicatedstan.
:crazy:

I see so many DUers falling waaaaaay down on the evolution chain. I can totally appreciate the frustrations and emotions that come with giving your heart and mind to a particular candidate but what I don't understand is the complete lack of human compassion and understanding (a foundation of the "progressive" ideology) afforded to others you may not agree with.

[orleans]

60. well said. as usual.

[Spiffarino]

61. CNN Calls the Primaries the "Ballot Bowl"

And there's the root of the problem. It's all about races and numbers and positioning. They tout superficial detail like Mike Huckabee's changing his stance on illegal immigrants or Romney's 180 degree turnabout on women's rights and gays.

What matters? Is it more important that they're playing the election game successfully, or that they stand for nothing? Is hypocrisy just another angle used to gain position, or is it a deep character flaw? Does spending most of your time collecting money rather than developing decent policies mean you are a pragmatic politician, or does it make you a useless drain on society?

As long as we allow our election process to be cheapened by our major media in this way, elective offices around the country will be filled with pretty actors with neither values nor vision.

We must become - and overcome - the mainstream media or this country is dead.

[NanceGreggs]

62. Couldn't agree more! n/t

[Spiffarino]

64. That means a lot

...coming from you.

[DeepModem Mom]

65. K&R -- you've done it again!

:applause:

[saltpoint]

67. I'm hoping to find a multi-racial Buddhist who no money and an

excessive affinity for cowboy jewelry.

Ideally from a swing state.

[puebloknot]

68. I appreciate a lot of your posts, which concentrate on the issues in a stellar fashion.

This piece really is a rant which assumes to instruct others on this board with regard to their behavior. Every discussion board has to deal with this sort of problem, where some people are less evolved than others in their exchanges. That's what the board rules are for; that's what the mods are for.

Beyond that control mechanism, there is great value in keeping things wide open, so people can express themselves -- even though some are more articulate than others, some are more polite and focused than others.

Before the Internet, spirited (sometimes obnoxious) political discourse was held in the town square, so to speak. A look back in time in our country shows that the political process has always been a bit rowdy. I have even had the private thought at times that the Great Unwashed are too ignorant to vote, and maybe we *should* have a different political process for choosing our leaders. But then the blood of my Revolutionary War ancestors comes to the fore, and I have to realize that it was a rag-tag band that gave birth to this country.

I've always been amazed at the way potluck dinners work out. People just kind of bring what they're in the mood to bring, and most of the time, there's a pretty good balancing of salads and drinks and desserts. Political dialogue is kind of like that, I think. In the final analysis...Let the People speak, out there and in here. If we don't like the way *some people* conduct themselves, we can look elsewhere.

[NanceGreggs]

70. No, I'm not trying to instruct anyone ...

... just merely pointing out that if you passionately support one candidate over another, you're not going to change anyone else's preferences by insulting their intelligence - and, of late, questioning their patriotism.

I've seen comments like, "If you support X, you obviously don't care what will happen to this country," or, "My candidate is down in the polls, so obviously you people don't want to do the right thing."

I think all of us here want to do what we think best for our country. And if we see that "best" manifested in a particular candidate rather than another, so be it.

Over the years, I have been involved in many a lively debate here over issues - and have enjoyed every minute of the back-and-forth. But "winning" an argument by insinuating that someone is stupid simply because they don't agree with you is - well, along with being rude and obnoxious, it is truly pointless.

I also rely heavily on DU as my source of news - the state of the MSM being what it is. But even straight-out news threads are being overtaken by those who just can't resist things like, "If you think THIS is bad, just wait until (Dem candidate here) gets into the White House. It'll be a lot worse."

I am truly pissed-off - and I don't think I'm alone in that feeling - because it is becoming almost impossible to have an honest political debate about anything these days without the discussion eventually (and usually sooner rather than later) dissolving into posters insulting each other over which candidate they support.

A lot of DUers are off-the-boards, either permanently or for the duration of this nonsense. I miss their input terribly, and the reasoned, intelligent manner in which they raised the political discussion to an honest exchange of ideas - rather than a mud-slinging contest aimed at fellow posters.

Of course, all of this is my personal opinion - but as I've said, I know I am not alone in that opinion. I would have thought it obvious that no matter how passionately you feel about your candidate, telling those who prefer a different candidate that they're an idiot isn't going to win your guy a single vote. And it's likely to lose you a lot of respect in the bargain.

Thank you for your reply - and BTW, your "pot luck" analogy was perfect! It will all balance out in the end - which is why I don't understand why some here feel it necessary to ruin everyone else's appetite before we ever get to sit down and enjoy the meal.

[puebloknot]

79. Your wishes for sane and adult behavior are shared by many, myself among them!

We are going through the most serious political scenario of most of our lives. It would be wonderful if everyone who is moved to post here did it from a reasoned and thoughtful perspective. I greatly enjoy reading some of the more elevated material posted here (some of it yours). Indeed, some of the exchanges we see here cause me to visualize a group setting up a guillotine in the DU Square!

Your admonition to a higher level of discourse is reasonable. I just think that we have to err in the direction of *no* censorship -- even the milder form in which people just aren't sure their views are welcome among "friends"! Some people are not gifted with communication skills to the degree that others are, so .... noblisse oblige, n'est ce pas?

Thanks for writing!

[NanceGreggs]

80. I would never advocate censorship of any kind ...

... but a little courtesy doesn't have to quash one's expression of thought.

I just keep wondering :shrug: what the personal attackers think they are accomplishing:

"Thanks for calling me an ill-informed, unpatriotic idiot! From here on in, I'll support your guy - no questions asked!"

Somehow, I just don't see that as being the way to get one's ideas across.

As always, puebloknot, thanks for joining the conversation!!!

[Usrename]

69. Everything is wonderful.

No worries.

It really doesn't matter anyways.

[f the letter]

71. Amen

Let's talk to each other without the one-liner pissing match nonsense.

[amb123]

72. On target as usual, Nance. Here's the 2008 Dem Primary in a nutshell:

Clinton Supporters: "GIVE ME HILLARY OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!
Obama Supporters: "GIVE ME OBAMA OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!
Edwards Supporters: "GIVE ME EDWARDS OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!
Kucinich Supporters: "GIVE ME KUCINICH OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!

If we keep talking like this, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL DIE in November.

[elias7]

74. Another amen...

Unnecessary war is the province of others, not Democrats or Progressives. Let's not fall into that trap at this point.

Thanks Nance...

[ClayZ]

75. Bravo! K and R

[Myrina]

77. Wish I could still Rec this essay ...

... your writing continues to be prescient and spot-on.

Thank you. :patriot:


:applause: :applause:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

78. My dear Nance...

Too late to recommend, but you've got a lot of those already...

Well said, as usual, sweetie!

And anyone who says you're an idiot?

That's what they are!

[bluescribbler]

81. This has bothered me for at least a year

A year ago today, I asked, "Could we please lay off bashing Democrats for a while?" Obviously, it didn't do any good.

[saltpoint]

82. I'm kicking the hell out of this. It's a great post.