Why is it so damn difficult

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

for people to support a candidate without degrading, belittling, slandering or otherwise trashing that candidate's opponent?

If your candidate is so damn wonderful why can't you let his/her merits speak for themselves?

If you support Obama and you think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not advertise his virtues and leave it at that? Why do you think is it necessary to call Hillary bitchy and whiny, or Machiavellian, calculating, power-mad or cynical? You can fairly argue about her policies and positions; it's even fair to criticize her campaign strategy, but what's with all the personal shit? You don't know what she's thinking. That shit is right out of the Freeper playbook and it doesn't belong here.

Same goes for Hillary supporters. If she's clearly the better candidate it shouldn't be necessary for you to call Obama naive, foolish, an empty suit, a cult leader, a liar or any of the other mean, nasty crap I've seen here lately. Why is it so difficult to analyze and compare his policies, experience and background without calling him names? And why do you feel you have to insult his supporters by accusing them of mindless cultishness?

I know I'm probably just farting in a whirlwind here. Many others have begged for civility and it hasn't helped; the trolls, rabid partisans and all-around assholes seem to be controlling the discussion.

But I'll try once more: Clinton and Obama are both good Democrats and fine, intelligent, capable candidates -- and either would be an excellent President. We are fortunate to have people like them on our side instead of lame losers like the Republicans got stuck with. They both deserve our respect, even if you strongly prefer one over the other. As for me, I will be voting for the nominee.

OK, you can go back to bashing now...

[Drum]

1. Recommended.

We should stop handing ammunition to the opposition.

Some great patriot once said "We must hang together, for surely we will hang separately."

:toast: to Ocelot

[Thepricebreaker]

2. Because its reality. People enjoy smashing the opponent into ground and having a beer afterwards.

Not all people, but in most heated competitions - its a rowdy, crazy, in your face, hardcore situation.

[Maddy McCall]

9. Only in your juvenile fantasy world.

That's not the way it is in the real world.

[uppityperson]

3. k&r

[KLee]

4. agreed and rec

[Lisa0825]

5. I think I have been pretty fair for the most part,

though I admit getting pulled into the fray at times myself. However, there are times when something Hillary or her campaign surrogates say oodo something that makes me really angry. And I'm sorry, but I did feel like she had a poor showing in the last debate. I could list several negative adjectives, but I won't, for the sake of keeping this a civil thread. I am sure that someone supporting Hillary could say the same thing too. when you get invested emotionally in a candidate's campaign, attacks on them feel an awful lot like attacks on you, and sometimes you just plain get angry. Anger can cause people to say a lot of things they might later regret.

I am not excusing anyone's words or actions. I am just trying to explain why it happens, and it happens on both sides. Just take comfort in the fact that the race won't last muchc longer, and then we can work on being on the same team again.

[whatchamacallit]

6. I tried asking this earlier, though not as well.

Rec'd

[stop the bleeding]

7. best quote all day

I know I'm probably just farting in a whirlwind here.

[Olney Blue]

8. I don't understand it either.

I voted for Hillary in my primary, and I respect and admire Obama. I love reading posts about him and his fantastic family, and it disturbs me when a "Hillary supporter" attacks him. What does that accomplish? I just don't understand it from either side.

I will vote for our nominee in the GE, and I will crawl on glass to beat McCain!

[KLee]

10. "I will crawl on glass to beat McCain"

Love it!!

[jgraz]

12. Actually, I think that's the new requirement if you're black and voting in Florida.

[jgraz]

11. Both are valid methods of advocating for your candidate

And many of the negative posts about Obama and Clinton have some merit. I think the childish slams at supporters are less than helpful, but both candidates have had some well-deserved criticisms leveled against them.

The problem comes when we let the infighting distract us from real issues that are being ignored in this campaign. Where do the candidates stand on signing statements? What about enemy combatants and habeus corpus? What's their plan for restoring New Orleans? And, how do they plan on dealing with the real war criminals who are currently running our government?

Nobody is asking those questions.

[Olney Blue]

14. Excellent point. There is definitely a way to discuss issues without getting

personal with the poster. And we need to hear more about the issues for sure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. I'm not saying criticism is out of bounds.

But it should be fair and rational and based on facts, not lies, innuendo or clearly biased crap from RW sources.

For example, I, like a lot of other people, have been critical of Hillary's IWR vote. But although I think she has some 'splainin' to do, and that it's fair to ask for an explanation or a justification for that vote, I have never, and would never, call her anything like a warmonger or a neocon a Republican fellow-traveler. I believe she was very wrong, and that she needs to reassure us that she will not go down that road again -- I can criticize on the facts and theories but I won't insult. When you resort to personal attacks, all it proves is that you don't have a solid argument.

[jgraz]

17. The problem is: who decides what's out of bounds

An Obama supporter's valid criticism is a Hillary supporter's slander. And vice versa.

Personally, I'd be delighted if everyone conformed to my idea of good behavior (myself included), but it hardly ever works that way. I'm not entirely sure if just letting the two sides blast away at each other isn't the best practical approach we have.

[yardwork]

13. I'm with you all the way, ocelot!

This is a historic election. The Democrats have two strong candidates. For the first time in our nation's history, we have a good chance at electing either a woman or an African American.

When this nation was founded, neither women nor African Americans were allowed to vote!

It took until the latter part of the 20th century - 200 years later! - before women and African Americans had any significant rights.

The struggle for human rights is far from over. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are more conservative than I would like, but at least they are Democrats.

As a Democrat, I'm proud of my party.

[HopeFor2006]

18. I am with you

I have been torn between the candidates all through the primaries. I am proud of my party and proud that we have two great candidates to offer when the other party has had a weak field to put it mildly.

[KLee]

15. kick