Snarky, first-grade level responses to criticism is what is KILLING both campaigns.

[TooBigaTent]

Whenever a candidate is attacked, their supporters always and only come back with, "Yeah. but so's your candidate." They NEVER address the objection raised.

In one thread, BO is criticized for and the fear expressed that he will sell out to the corporate world. The objection raised is that BO has shown that he is primarily (no pun intended) interested in appealing to conservatives, indies, and pukes. Liberal Democrats are just supposed to shut up and vote. I happen to agree.

Sen. Obama is "defended" by someone who asserts that Sen. Clinton would also sell out. Again, I happen to agree, BUT, whether HC is weak on that issue is NOT the point. The Obamaite does not counter the criticism, simply adds to the fire by sticking out their tongue and going, "so's your old man."

Not helpful, at all.

The fight between the two COULD have been helpful if either one learned how to react effectively to the kind of attack from the pukes that will be a million times more vehement and negative in the GE. But all they are doing is providing ammunition to the pukes by attacking back instead of refuting the argument.

[grasswire]

1. divide and conquer

Republicans are loving it.

[Cant trust em]

2. That would be the ad hominem logical fallacy

instead of attacking the point levelled against them/their candidate candidate, they deflect attention back onto the attacker.
Essentially, I'm rubber and you're glue.

[redqueen]

3. I think it's actually Hillary and her campaign staff killing her campaign.

And it seems to me that Obama's campaign is doing fine.

Not sure what you meant to say, but...

[LisaM]

4. That's true

and it's completely an historical situation. For whatever reason, the women's movement and the civil rights movement have historically butted heads. It's sad, because you'd think we have a lot in common.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Hold on a second.

If we're still trying to discriminate between two candidates based on their differences, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to point out that issues which are presented as differentiators between the candidates really aren't.

For my part I see only a handful of differentiators;
1) universal healthcare
2) sexism v. racism (that debate will not be resolved, and does huge damage)
3) experience, skill and work ethic
4) charisma, vision and style
5) natural constituencies
6) Bill

99% of the issues brought up here to discredit Hillary are in no way differentiators between the candidates.

[gateley]

6. I think the DEGREE of snark you refer to is

mostly confined to the blogs.

I often think that I'm relieved that the majority of Americans don't see what's going on with the candidates' supporters.

The snarky comments that the candidates make are another matter.

[2rth2pwr]

7. What does what happens here at DU have

to do with either campaign?