DU Posters: Stop Unfairly Using 2008 to Bash Candidates.

[PresidentObama]

Enough is enough.

Whether it's John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Obama.

It's getting old. If you have a fair criticism of these candidates, FINE!

But if your bashing them in order to try and weaken them in some sort of desperate way, NOT FINE!

It's a sad world when Democrats bash other Democrats without the right reasoning or motives, and simply want to get their candidates ahead.

This applies to ALL kinds of supporters of EVERY one of the candidates.

JUST STOP!!

Be fair, don't play nice, but be fair. Lying, distorting, and talking out of your ass is for those special interest and corporate folks of the GOP.

[trumad]

1. Does that include Joe Lieberman?

What if he runs again? Can I bash him?

[PresidentObama]

2. Lieberman.....

Doesn't count.

Any criticism of him is most generally accepted. Feel free to take him out by the knees :P

I'm mainly talking about 2008, and the Presidential election.

EDIT: We all know he wouldn't run again. If he couldn't win the primary in his own state, I seriously doubt he'd stand a chance. I'm being realistic here.

[Infinite Hope]

14. Don't be surprised if Lieberman runs as an Independent for President.

You heard it here.

[Catchawave]

30. Wouldn't surprise me.....

I think any Presidential(both sides of the aisle)candidate who starts lagging by, say, March '07, should start their own party. Joe did set the precedent afterall, and I do admire him for taking that sore loserman mentality to the finish line.

I mean, most countries have a few dozen parties on the general election ballots, don't they ?

[geardaddy]

38. So do we.

Doesn't your state have at least six party's candidates on the ballot when you vote?

[PresidentObama]

3. Another thing....

Criticism of candidates is totally different from lying, distorting, and...well talking out of your ass. Which seems to be the agenda of a growing number of DU posters who support certain candidates for 2008!

[Catchawave]

32. Can we improve on the DU rules, which states:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

That is, without troubling the "free speech" advocates ?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Third time I'm posting this tonight, but it bears consideration...the MSM is

hyping the so called major differences between the possible or real Dem candidates, as well as speculating on the perceived "weaknesses" of the Dems....

Where is the speculation about the repub candidates? How about an even cursory comparison of the three who are prominent, either have announced or expected to announce...McCain, Guiliani and Brownback?

We are falling into the trap, here on DU.

The discussion here and, more broadly, is so one sided. Let's play a little divide and conquer on the repubs. Imagine Brownback and Guiliani in a debate...delicious.

McCain is so defanged he'd be an easy target for the other two, given just a small opening.

Let's whip up a little healthy competition on the other side, for a change! MKJ

[ClassWarrior]

57. Please stop falling into the first trap, then, of calling them...

...the "mainstream" media. As your post so amply demonstrates, they couldn't me more out of the mainstream if they were sitting in Pat Buchanan's backyard kiddie pool. Please call them the Corporate Media or something else more appropriate.

Thanks. Rant off. :rant:

NGU.

[PresidentObama]

5. "Where is the speculation about the repub candidates?"

Amen.

[lancdem]

6. Exactly

Sometimes I avoid DU because the bashing is disconcerting.

[PresidentObama]

7. We are better then this....

Sometimes when I read posters here trying to break down a candidate for all the wrong reasons, thats the only thing that comes to mind: We are better then this.

[Radical Activist]

8. Missionaries don't make for fun conversation.

I like to discuss 2008, but it gets old when people are splitting hairs and making far-fetched arguments because they are only here to promote their candidate. If you can't say something nice about more than one candidate, then post about something else.

[wisteria]

9. I agree, being negative gets us nowhere.

Accurate and fair criticism is fine, personal bashing using media made profiles and talking points are wrong. We should be better than the MSM.

[IndyOp]

10. I think the most effective way to lessen the screeching - is to ask for a link...

"So and so has said they aren't going to do X, Y, or Z. Do you have a link for that?"

Information is effective - not volume. Please.

:-)

On edit: To be clear, I've made my own "volume" mistakes. I am trying to do better.

[Catchawave]

11. Thank you !

And I'm sure all the candidates thank you too. After all, WE represent them here and they'd probably appreciate WE make them look good :)

'K, gotta get back to help debunk Edwards being responsible for the death of Lebanese babies :eyes:

[Clark2008]

39. Edwards responsible for the death of Lebanese babies?

It's no secret that I find Edwards lacking in a lot of ways, but that one is even to far-fetched for me to swallow.

Geesch.

[PresidentObama]

12. Best wishes with that debunking LOL!!

My regards to any supporter of candidates who are beaten up by people who lie and distort the truth.

If only they realized we have over a year before these candidates electability, popularity, and appeal will mean anything.

Can you imagine how this place will be in a year? Oh no....

[UrbScotty]

13. But people need to know that Hillary uses the WRONG KIND OF PERFUME!!!

:sarcasm:

[CK_John]

15. IMO, This candidate bashing, since the election, seems too

organized, too planned, too rovish. I think we've been overrun by pros.

[talk hard]

16. definitely pro

Whose to say what bashing is anyway? Sometimes the truth is considered bashing when somebody else does't want to hear it. There's a lot of hollow accusations of that.

[Catchawave]

24. Google Bombing comes to mind

I'm not sure what it means, but it's not nice. Virginia blogs did that against Allen, and Allen's campaign blamed "google bombing". So that could work against national Dem candidates too...no?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. I think so, as well. Many of the "bash a certain potential candidate" OP's have

that kernel of truth around which a lie is spun. That is a staple of corporate advertising and political dirty tricks.

And, tinfoil on, I think many have been members for 2-4 years, and have contributor's star. The surprising thing is the number of innocuous posts they've made prior to developing the intense dislike that fuels their posts.

Joining DU in 2003 ( :tinfoilhat: ) seems to be a common thread in the profiles I've clicked on today. And all have donation stars. Even if we are infested with political operatives it's great that DU gets contributions from both the pro and amateur trolls. :-) MKJ

[Eurobabe]

47. I agree with you.

I think there are CONPLANTS on here that have played nice to jack up their post count, and then have unleashed holy hell in the last months since the election. We're handing them the keys with our circular firing squad shit. I admit, I did it after the election, but I am stopping it because I see the pattern and trend here.

There are a few posters who I damn well KNOW are CON trolls. You know who you are too.

[smoogatz]

17. Oh for Christ's sake.

For some candidate boosters, ANY criticism (or insufficient applause, even) of their guy is construed as unfair bashing, undoubtedly the result of corporate media brainwashing and possibly outright freeperism. I've never had my motives impugned more on DU than when I've made the mistake of registering my opinion in some stupid rah-rah thread. If you think what you're hearing about Kerry on DU is tough, harsh or unfair, just wait until he announces his candidacy for '08 and then check out the cable Info-nooz-o-ganda shows; if you and your guy can't satand the little bit of heat you're getting on DU, I hate to think how you'll react when the national spotlight's on you.

[AtomicKitten]

18. word

[snowbear]

19. And let's stop bashing jumping purple mice while we're at it !!

~~~~~~~ (( ))

Merry Christmas! ~

[AtomicKitten]

21. but that would take away the fun for some, doncha know?

Merry Holidays!

[snowbear]

23. OMG, I'm calling the SPCA....

You rodent smusher you!!

[Vektor]

41. Delete

Meant to reply to OP.

[PresidentObama]

smoogatz, whats this about Kerry?

I'm not just worried about lies and distorting of the truth of John Kerry, just because he's my candidate. I think I pointed out it's non sense no matter what candidate it's aimed at.

Again, criticism and lying/distorting the truth are two totally different things. Just to point out the stated...again.

[PresidentObama]

27. smoogatz, what this about Kerry?

I'm not just worried about lies and distorting of the truth of John Kerry, just because he's my candidate. I think I pointed out it's non sense no matter what candidate it's aimed at.

Again, criticism and lying/distorting the truth are two totally different things. Some of the posters here need to learn that!

[AtomicKitten]

34. since you brought it up

Maybe this will answer your question:

To this accusation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3025502&mesg_id=3026058

Within days of a close defeat, he was stabbed in the back by people like Bill Clinton, who made a point of saying Kerry rejected his advice to endorse all the gay bashing bills - which would have shown what you wanted to show - that Kerry had no firm positions.

I posted this article:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/05/06/democrats_platform_shouldnt_back_gay_marriage_kerry_says/

Democrats' platform shouldn't back gay marriage, Kerry says

Excerpt:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- US Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he believes it's a mistake for the Massachusetts Democratic Party to include a plank in its official platform in support of same-sex marriage, saying that such a statement does not conform with the broad views of party members.

Kerry, who opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions, said in an interview with the Globe that he would prefer that the party not mention gay marriage in its platform, because Democrats continue to disagree on how to handle the issue.

''I'm opposed to it being in a platform. I think it's a mistake," Kerry said shortly after hosting a forum on his universal children's healthcare bill in Baton Rouge. ''I think it's the wrong thing, and I'm not sure it reflects the broad view of the Democratic Party in our state."

snip

The state party chairman, Philip W. Johnston, said Kerry's opposition will not affect the party's decision to support of same-sex marriage. When the party meets next Saturday in Lowell, he said, the platform is on track to be approved as it stands.

''I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue," Johnston said. ''It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

Now, since you brought it up, what is spin and lies and distortion and what is the truth? This article seems to prove that Kerry clearly has had his own ideas about how to handle the LGBT platform and unless one is suggesting he is a sock puppet operated by others, I don't see how anyone can view this in any other way. Parsing words and dissing his hometown paper doesn't count, at least if one is claiming to be reasonable. My tendency is to believe investigative journalism, yet I am accused of spinning, lying, and bashing by posting articles from his hometown.

It is clear truth is a very squishy thing at DU.

This scenario is played out over and over again at DU, and I think is precisely what smoogatz described upthread.

[dailykoff]

37. Apples and oranges.

Bill wanted Kerry to back Rove-inspired hate legislation. Kerry refused. Comparing that to his decision not to add gay marriage to the party platform is really desperate.

[AtomicKitten]

49. a stock response

Name-calling ... I'm afraid calling me "desperate" still does not explain how the allegation that BC made Kerry do anything regarding the LGBT platform holds water in light of the article posted. Kerry clearly has some home-grown reticence and trepidation of his own on the subject, and blaming BC for his actions is tantamount to calling him BC's personal sock-puppet. Kerry is a grown man and responsible for his own decisions.

I raised a legitimate, referenced by a source point that deserves discussion and not being cut off at the knees by name-calling and snark because you don't like the possible implications.

Thank you for demonstrating precisely what smoogatz was talking about and the fact that zero insight precludes any hope for better discourse.

[JI7]

50. Defense of Marriage Act

there is a difference between leaving something out of a platform and supporting anti gay legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act (which Kerry voted against and Clinton supported and signed into law).

and similar type of ballot measures as were on the states in 2004 which Clinton said to support. since Kerry did not do as Clinton advised him here there isn't much to "blame" but it does show Clinton has a history and record of supporting such things.

as for name calling, this from someone who refers to some DUers as a "Klan".

[IndianaGreen]

51. Hear! Hear! DOMA hurt people!

Ironic that the President with the second highest moral failings our nation has ever seen, Bush being Numero Uno on that account, saw to deny to LGBTs a basic human right, the right to marry those they loved.

[AtomicKitten]

54. It's interesting

that people here will forgive the yes vote on the IWR because it was strategically positioned before an election by the GOP but remain steadfast in their disdain for Clinton for signing DOMA (it was most certainly not his piece of legislation) also positioned right before his own re-election.

DOMA was most definitely POS legislation. But framing it as Clinton's baby is flat-out gratuitous slamming of someone we already know you don't like, so I hardly see it relevant to the question I asked regarding Kerry's choice of platform other than that you are blaming BC for that as well.

Merry Holidays to you regardless.

[JI7]

55. she is blaming Clinton for signing DOMA

[IndianaGreen]

56. Clinton remains unrepentant for signing DOMA, while Kerry and Edwards

have repented of their IWR vote. Being unrepentant appears to be a Clintonian trait.

[AtomicKitten]

52. That still does not explain

why anyone would blame BC for Kerry's decisions. Kerry undoubtedly sought counsel from BC as well as a plethora of others during the campaign but, again, Kerry is responsible for his own decisions.

Neither the article nor I intimated Kerry was anywhere in the neighborhood of anti-LGBT, just that he most certainly has his own ideas about the LGBT platform in an election. Clearly Kerry's own state party chairman took issue with Kerry's position.

from the same article:

The state party chairman, Philip W. Johnston, said Kerry's opposition will not affect the party's decision to support of same-sex marriage. When the party meets next Saturday in Lowell, he said, the platform is on track to be approved as it stands.

''I have great affection and respect for John, but I disagree on this issue," Johnston said. ''It is important that the state Democratic Party support civil rights. We need to take a stand."

This discussion will simply devolve into the usual tag-team circuitous logic, voluminous posting of data to prove Kerry is not anti-LGBT (which was never the inference), and ultimately brow-beating, name-calling, resurrecting old arguments, questioning motivation, and ultimately screaming "bashing," - but it most assuredly will not end up answering the simple question I posed.

Been there, done that.

Merry Holidays.

[JI7]

53. it's not blaming Clinton for Kerry's decisions, it's blaming Clinton for his own

decisions such as signing the DOMA.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. It's gonna get a hell of alot worse before the primaries are over.

What you've seen so far is just the apetizer. The main course is still to come.

It takes a VERY thick skin to survive a primary season at a place like this. You can't even begin to imagine how nasty this place can get.

[AtomicKitten]

22. yum?

[Catchawave]

25. LOL....probably why most of us are

using the "alert" option more than we'd like? I mean come on, Edwards does NOT eat Lebanese babies! Something like that....eh?

[AtomicKitten]

28. I heard

he puts babies on spikes. Lebanese babies on spikes.

(circa: Eddie Izzard)

[Catchawave]

29. Yeah, that's the ticket...

...puts them on spikes, cooks them over a pit, THEN eats them. :woohoo:

[citizen snips]

44. I hope you are wrong

[pacalo]

31. After what we've been through for the past 6 years, I wouldn't think of bashing any Democrat

running for president. I'm not into shooting myself in the foot.

[PresidentObama]

33. Edwards eats babies??

Stop me before I make a post, and bury John Edwards in the mud with lies and distorting information.

:P Isn't the internet wonderful?

We truly are the generation of wikipedia reliability!

Al Gore invented the internet, pass it on....

[fujiyama]

35. It sucks

It's already starting to look like the '04 primaries...

I'll admit I've engaged in a bit of bashing myself though (against only one candidate, who I'm tired having pushed on by the media as a front runner without a vote cast)....

[Kahuna]

36. Besides, that usually backfires and the popularity of those they bash

tends to increase. Go figure. :shrug:

[noamnety]

40. A comparison on the issues would be helpful

If anyone has time - or maybe there is one already? It would be great to see a table with each candidate's position marked on the issues, so we can see them laid out side by side. That would be more helpful to me than vague discussions of who is more "electable".

So, for example on the Iraq war, we'd mark their positions on a range from "Troops out now" to "troops out by this date: ______" to "troops out eventually, but I don't have a specific deadline"

On marriage rights, we'd have "Equal rights for all" "civil unions for GLBT" "no marriage or civil unions for GBLT" "states should make their own laws"

and so forth, down the line.

[Vektor]

42. Agreed, thanks.

I'd imagine anyone who has an issue with your post either knows they resemble that remark, and/or REALLY needs to bash other people to make themselves feel better, and doesn't want to let go of that security blanket no matter how misguided it might be.

And yes, thank you for pointing out that there is a huge difference between legitimate criticism on policy issues, and baseless personal attacks. Some pretend not to be able to differentiate the two, but it's obvious that name calling and childishness have no place in an intelligent, adult discussion.

K&R

[Jeffersons Ghost]

43. hey! I didn't agree! okay, well maybe after just one more good bashing...

I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THIS GRAPHIC BASHING

I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO ALL RATTLESNAKES!

[Vektor]

48. Bwaaa-hahahaha.

OMG. That is grotesque, yet very funny.

Poor rattlesnakes, though. You're right about that.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Whether a candidate colors his/her hair is a legitimate issue

Can we trust someone that lies as to their hair color? Reagan colored his, but never admitted it. See what that got us?

[Eurobabe]

46. HANDING FREE MEMES/SOUND BYTES TO THE OPPOSITION

Think about THAT before you post your TRASH against one of our own. I've taken to hiding threads about candidates that I don't particularly care for rather than smearing them.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

58. locking.

describing the actions of other DU members in a blanket statement "as lies, distortions and and talking out of your ass is for those special interest and corporate folks of the GOP." is not productive.

in fact, it's a general attack against supporters of particular candidates... and therefore... this is going to be locked.