A lot of disruption going on on the DU boards in the past couple of days

[brentspeak]

Apocryphal, unflattering stories about John Edwards. Misquoting things Edwards has said. Misquoting things other Democrats have said.

Tell me: is there a difference between a Freeper getting on these boards and typing, "Let me tell you about my own negative personal experience concerning John Edwards/Al Gore/Gen.Clark. You'll just have to trust me." and anyone else who gets on these boards who types the same thing?

Or a Freeper using the DU boards to criticize Democrats in ways that are not honest, constructive criticism; and a DUer doing the same thing?

There's no difference; both are using the boards to spread malicious gossip concerning Democrats, both are using the boards to get DUers to yell and bicker at each other.

caveat: My OP is not directed at those who have posted honest, constructive critiques of any Democrats' stances on issues.

[JohnLocke]

1. Amen, brother. K&R.

[NMDemDist2]

2. seems it's always been the way

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/3

[Catchawave]

46. Yes, DU isn't for wussies is it ?

:evilgrin:

Probably why I lurked here a year before I jumped in.

[hijinx87]

3. oh, please.

criticizing edwards doesn't make you a freeper.

having said that, I have been quite up front about the fact that
I considered him to be an "empty suit", but that his first official
week on the campaign trail has me rethinking my position.

he is a vastly improved candidate.

[brentspeak]

5. Constructive, honest criticism = more than OK

That's what we're supposed to do. You or anyone can criticize Edwards/Gore/Clark/whomever to one's heart's content. But there are an inordinate amount of gossip-mongering, character-assassinating, disruptive-types on these boards who are not interested in constructive criticism. Those are the posters I'm talking about.

[hijinx87]

7. people are passionate about this

and the results of that passion are what you see before you.

just my opinion . . . . .

[Catchawave]

52. I have never called Democrats or Republicans

"empty suits" That's not passion, that's nonconstructive.

[EFerrari]

4. I posted a thread from hell about Edwards but wasn't getting the big picture.

DUers straightened me out and also we had a conversation about obligatory religiosity and lowering our expectations about the Fed's responsibility to citizens.



:shrug:

[cleveramerican]

6. we are Democrats, of course we hammer our own.

same as it ever was.

We don't need republicans for that
Malicious gossip is in the eye of the beholder.

[hijinx87]

9. indeed. the rethugs tend to "anoint" their guy

we hammer it out in a no-holds-barred grudge match ;)

[Catchawave]

53. IMO,

it makes us look stupid. And I'm not talking about lockstep support, but there's a way to frame criticism without the "snakeoil" attacks. Hammer away, but you better be able to take it back :hi:

[talk hard]

8. sounds like politics as usual to me

and it ain't pretty

[spooky3]

10. I have a little bit different view of this

Speaking only for myself, I appreciate it if someone takes the time to genuinely explain why she or he has had a bad (or good) experience with a candidate, and to respond to reasonable questions or disagreements it might stimulate. How do I know whether the person is telling the truth at least as she or he perceives it, or being fair? I don't know. I just have to take a guess, based on what is said and how it is said, the person's prior posts, etc.

And it doesn't mean I have to draw the same conclusions that the person who posted did.

I completely agree with you, though, about how wrong it is for people to misquote someone, especially when it portrays a good Dem in a bad light, and especially when they know they are doing so.

[hijinx87]

12. I tend to dismiss personal anecdotes

and concentrate on a range of issues that tell me what kind of
president the candidate is likely to make.

[spooky3]

13. yes, I'm the same way

but if people want to report their anecdotes about a candidate, it is sometimes helpful to me to understand where they are coming from.

[hijinx87]

14. I suppose it's useful information

but it's so subjective as to be very difficult to place the
proper value on it.

[spooky3]

15. The original post raised the question about whether they should

be ALLOWED to post their anecdotes (because disruption by Freepers is not allowed on DU, so it seems to me that he's asking how is it different when...).

That's what I am responding to. I was trying to point out something that could offset what the OP sees as the risks and costs (with which I agree).

[hijinx87]

18. ah. right you are

my attention wandered.

I think that "anything goes" should be the rule. I don't especially
value anecdotal reasoning, but that doesn't mean that no one else does.

[sendero]

40. Bingo..

... why would I believe such an anecdote? Frankly, unless I personally knew the person relating it, I give it about the same credibility as something Bush or Tony Snowy says, i.e. none.

[hijinx87]

11. edwards is probably a strong enough candidate

to withstand the firestorm this time.

[EFerrari]

16. Edwards has been speaking out with a maturity he didn't have

last round. Very impressive. There's a there, there.

[hijinx87]

19. he is a very different candidate

and he has my attention.

[ToolTex]

17. He withstood the firestorm just fine LAST time.

Do you suggest differently, hijinx87?

[hijinx87]

20. I didn't see much of a firestorm surrounding edwards in 2004.

he seemed to get something of a free pass.

[EFerrari]

21. Maybe some of us were being distracted by the hit job on Dean.

I confess, I didn't attend very well to him last time out.

[hijinx87]

22. I was OUTRAGED by what happened to dean in 2004

I try to not take it personally, but howard dean got torpedoed.

[EFerrari]

23. That's what I mean. Maybe, lol, John Edwards is coming through clearer

because I can listen better and through less static.

The Dean hit probably affected how we could listen to any of our contenders.

[hijinx87]

26. if howard dean had been nominated in 2004, then what happened in 2006

may have arrived sooner, and saved the lives of many young
americans.

as I said, I try not to take it personally, but dean got raped.

[hijinx87]

28. and, truth be told, my rage over what happened to dean

is probably what led me to support hillary.

there is no way that a clinton campaign would allow that shit
to happen.

[ToolTex]

24. He is too pretty to leave unattended, b.

:P

[EFerrari]

25. Agree.

lol

[Clark2008]

27. Sure there's a difference - and since this was directed toward

me, I'll answer it.

I've been here forever and a day. I have creds on this board that prove I'm no Freeper.

And I've told you MY PERSONAL experience. You don't have to read it, believe it, trust it or like it. But, what you must consider is that it WILL play into MY voting decision and the decisions of those who are around me.

BTW, I never misquoted Edwards. I just told a personal story about why I, ME, MYSELF, don't like him. You can still like him, despite his vote for the war and the Patriot Act, all you want.

[hijinx87]

29. tell me, if we magically solved the iraq war tomorrow

would you still support the good general?

[Adelante]

30. That's a curious question, hijinx87

What do you mean by it, if you don't mind my asking.

[hijinx87]

32. sure, I will explain

I think the clarkies are so concentrated on the iraq war that
they have gone for a general just because he brings anti-war
cred to the discussion.

I think the 2008 election will be about so very much more, or
at least SHOULD be about much more, that voting because of a single
issue may not be the smartest play.

I want a full-fledged progressive. and I don't think clark is one.

despite her vote on the IWR, hillary's ADA rating is 100. and I am
very encouraged by edwards latest incarnation.

but I don't want to nominate a candidate that is "right" on the war,
but "wrong" on everything else.

[Adelante]

35. "wrong" on everything else

Like what?

[hijinx87]

36. let me ask you, what is his position on

minimum wage, health care, the preservation of unions, social security,
national transportation infrastructure, public works projects, national
employment, choice, and the death penalty?

and that is just off the top of my head.

[Adelante]

49. Salut!

-minimum wage: He wanted to raise it to $7/hr during the 2004 campaign. I'm not sure what his current stance is in terms of amount.

-health care: He has said we need to be moving now to universal health coverage, beginning with all children. He is a major advocate of wellness programs and preventive health care. He wants to see a health care safety net, similar to the Army's, extended throughout civilian society. Very strong on government-promoted public health measures.

-the preservation of unions: He definitely supports unions. Clark sees labor unions as having a critical role to play in where he views labor needs to be going in the global market. He talks about channeling the labor market into a "development project" focused on new skills training and continuing education which would be organized and by unions and negotiated with employers as a benefit. His idea is that workers, unions and management, all three segments, commit themselves to this development project for the economic good of the nation.

-social security: He does believe in people investing for their retirement, but not at the expense of the Social Security System. He sees it as two separate things, one private and one public. He feels society owes Social Security protection to the generations that came before.

-national transportation infrastructure: Do you mean highways and public transportation here? He talks at great length about the national oil addiction and alternative fuels. One of the companies he helped start up actually developed an alternative engine.

-public works projects: He favors tearing down public projects and replacing them with home-ownership developments to revitalize neighborhoods. He sees stemming urban sprawl as a major priority. But it's hard to address the points simply because he sees things holistically. For example, he would coordinate affordable housing with transportation, economic development, employment, childcare, and education. Taken together, it would be a "public works project." He also supports new "Homestead Acts" so that the population can be assisted in moving to areas needing population and away from depressed cities.

-national employment: He would seek to reward companies who keep jobs in the States and not reward those who don't. He believes strongly in affirmative action for women and minorities. He is pro-immigrant. (I'm not sure if I have the gist of this part of the question.) Job creation was actually his number one priority in the primaries. He proposed a $100 billion jobs plan he would have funded by recalling Bush's tax breaks for the wealthy.

-choice: Pro-Choice. Decision of woman and her doctors. He says it's a human rights issue and should not be a matter of church doctrine interfering in government.

-death penalty: He's not entirely against the death penalty but would limit it to federal crimes. This could be a problem for some, but not for me. I think child-killers, for example, should be executed. Anyway, Clark says DNA proof must be required before sentencing.


I hope this helps your understanding of what General Clark stands for and why he has the loyal support of us Clarkies. You may also want to read this short vision piece on his website.

http://securingamerica.com/vision

[Donna Zen]

54. Blanket statements about Clark supporters

serve to exacerbate the problem of communication on progressive forums. I do know the answers to all of your queries because I listen and read. About an hour ago I watched a clip from a recent Clark Iowa appearance in which he talks about the problems with NAFTA and CAFTA. He accurately recognizes the lack of worker and environmental protections, and failure of political will in dealing with those issues. He was very clear, and certainly progressive. But then, I knew how he felt about these terribly flawed trade policies, because he has spoken before to what he calls "the race to the bottom".

My blanket statement is this: stating that Clark supporters are single dimensional is an insult to a group of very progressive, very broad issue, and very hard working Democrats. Clark supporters also appreciate that the members of the military know much more than how to polish their boots. I don't believe for a minute that Jim Webb or Joe Sestak have single issue supporters.

Foreign policy is very important, and extremely important when considering who will sit in the Oval Office--war or no war. It is the one area of policy that gives the executive the upper-hand. I do care who I agree with in this realm because trade policy, economic policy, and thus domestic policy, today and every day in our future will be impacted by foreign policy. I want someone who has proven their leadership and good judgment when making foreign policy decisions.

Wes Clark does have an Oxford degree in economics, and chose the science forum at the Yearly Kos where he spoke without notes for 45 minutes, took questions, and wowed the crowd...especially the other scientist present.

I too want a full-fledged progressive, which is why I will not be supporting Hillary Clinton.

[hijinx87]

37. and my apologies, by the way

I try to not get so personally involved in the candidate wars, but
I am in the midst of "holiday cheer".

[Adelante]

38. I got a bottle of single malt scotch for Christmas

I think I will crack it and get back to you on your question above. I would like to say, though, that I don't know a single Clark supporter whose support is limited to issues of war.

[hijinx87]

39. it's a deal, my friend.

I am sure that I have one, too.

[k_jerome]

31. the misquoting is directed at me...

not you.

Edwards recognizes radical Islam as a threat to our very existence. this pisses off his supporters. oh well.

[atre]

43. nope. both of you.

nm

[k_jerome]

45. i agree with Edwards...

it is a threat to our country and planet. he is spot on there.

[k_jerome]

33. incidentally, they will whine in your thread...

then start new threads to whine about your thread. it is an endless chore to keep up.

[atre]

42. How on earth can you possibly say that?

You said, "BTW, I never misquoted Edwards."

Here's what you said here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034768&mesg_id=3035099

"First, he thinks Christians are the only ones to rebuild this country and then he thinks that radical Islam is a threat to America."

With reference to the allegation that Edwards said "Christians are the only ones to rebuild this country," here's what Edwards really said: "You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

With reference to the allegation that he said he thinks radical Islam is a threat to America - and I'm not sure why that's really in controversy - he actually said, "I think what America has focused a great deal on the last few years violent radical Islam as a great threat to America - and it is a very serious issue - but the second serious issue that's got very little attention is the emergence of China as a huge economic and military force. Their military is largely opaque. We don't know what they're doing in China militarily. And our distraction -- not just a distraction, but an important issue - but our focus, our obsession, you should say - with radical Islam, which is important because we have to survive... the planet has to survive... But it's led us away from dealing with the other huge challenge which America faces, which is the growth and emergence of China."

It's pretty hard to justify those as anything other than intentional misquotes - especially when you tried to justify them as "jokes" in the Bush Orwellian sense ex post facto.

[k_jerome]

44. he sees radical Islam as a threat to the country's and planets...

survival. how is that a misquote?

[atre]

48. context, really

If you review the context, you see that Edwards is actually suggesting that we're so preoccupied with the threat of radical Islam (which is certainly a grave threat, but probably not for our "survival" - as Edwards states) that we're ignoring other important issues. He's hardly talking up fear-mongering against radical Islam.

[k_jerome]

ok. we are just going to disagree. that is creative thought. good night. nt.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

41. And I firmly believe..

.... that paid operatives for various Dem candidates are at work here as well.

There is really nothing that can be done about it, other than posting replies.

[k_jerome]

47. who's paying all the whiners? nt.

[atre]

50. we have jobs

:P

[k_jerome]

51. lol. nt.

[dogman]

55. How do we know you are not part of a massive Edwards' PR campaign?

Suddenly there are numerous pro-Edwards posts in conjunction with his announced candidacy. Pro-Edwards supporters who have been relatively absent for about a year show up to post again.

Maybe it isn't a grand conspiracy, maybe it is just people expressing their views, as is their right. A persons life experience determines their outlook and they have a right to express it, especially when they define it as such. I am much more comfortable with expressions of support and genuine concerns and reservations about a candidate than attacks on posters and fabricated accusations.

[k_jerome]

56. paid Edwards supporters are everywhere. nt.

[Redneck Socialist]

57. And this surprises you why?

You were around in '04. We're just getting warmed up, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Trajan]

58. Thanks for this thread, Brent ....

The disruption is real .... the arguments are dishonest, out of context and fallacious ...

I could SWEAR one of them is a post-tombstone reincarnation of one drdon, who sprouted the same assinine Neocon CRAP, and with the same dismissive arrogance that made the original somewhat despised in these parts ..... When the style is obvious, DU nicknames dont really matter ...

Funny thing about all that: through the whole time that the arrogant, RW DUer kept spouting his RW shinola, the whole time I would alert, and get my own posts deleted, week after week, because the mods refused to do anything about it : but they eventually found it necessary to do what they should have done a year earlier, and I didnt have to say a word ....

I am here ... That RW DUer is not (WAS not) ...

Its just a matter of time and a big mouth promoting the wrong ideas, .... and the cheap ride for the carney hucksters will end ...

Im a patient man ....

[spooky3]

59. thanks for hanging in there, Trajan!

[ncrainbowgrrl]

60. locking.

this thread has been determined by your friendly moderators to be flamebait.