Instead of responding to all these DU polls, here's how I will support the eventual nominee...

[wyldwolf]

...REGARDLESS of who it is...

As I usually do in election years... I will phone bank, I will knock on doors, I will donate the most I can afford financially. There is not single Democrat running who I would not support in this way if she/he won the nomination. I would be more enthusiastic about some, but it would not show in the work I did.

The main reason is I feel 100% that any Democrat would be better than any Republican. Of less importance, but certainly still a motivator, is my competitive nature. Like a rabid college football fan, I want bragging rights over my Republican friends and family members.

[Totally Committed]

1. After all the sh*t you've dished about everyone who wasn't Hillary? Really?

You could do that?

Amazing.


TC

[wyldwolf]

3. oh, sure. Were you here in 2004?

Lots of shit was dished - but I had ZERO problems getting behind Kerry when it was clear he was the nominee. And I worked my ass off.

Just like in 2004, there are some today on a "Anybody but____" kick, and some saying they will never vote for _______if he/she is the nominee.

Not me. Never has been.

[xultar]

2. I was gonna post this too. Then I realised that the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Gravel, Dodd,

Kucinich or Richardson haters wouldn't be able to say what they wouldn't do.

You know people are going to go into the polls and say well if X wins the nom I'm not going to support them I'll vote Green or some shit like that.

Don't you know you gotta give the haters somewhere to post.

[wyldwolf]

4. the haters can post here if they wish... we'll just know who they are...

[LWolf]

10. Pot, meet kettle.

Frankly, I've been, well, FRANK about where I stand since before any of them announced their candidacy. You'd think people would appreciate open, honest transparency, instead of labeling it "hate."

I won't be voting for most, if they happen to end up in the general election. I've been frank about that, too, and my reasons are valid. Just as valid as anyone else's reasons for what they do in the voting booth. What I will do instead? I have 15 months to decide, and in the end, it will be MY decision, not based on hate.

I don't "hate" any of the candidates. I don't "hate" on principle. I can disagree with someone without hating them, and I can refuse to enable dysfunction without "hating."

Are you a "hater" of those who don't give the party cult status, projecting your "hate" onto conscientious objectors, or are you just using the term "hate" carelessly?

[MGKrebs]

12. The problem is context. You are essentially in a Democratic "house".

If you come in here to say that some Democrats are worse than Republicans, you will be viewed as a hater within this community and from the Democratic context.

We talk bad about religion here a lot, and many feel free to say all kinds of bad things about Christianity here, but it would be inappropriate to go to a Christian site and say some of those things; it is THEIR place.

You can say whatever you want on your own blog, but this is a community and many of us feel a bit of ownership for the place, and this place was built with a purpose and we gather here to further that purpose. It's not just a soapbox for everyone with an internet connection.

[xultar]

13. Logic. You gotta love it. Thanks. You are the first to post with clarity on this subject.

[LWolf]

14. Thanks for "explaining" DU to me.

I'm probably dense enough not to notice, after almost 5 years and 14.5 thousand posts, that this is a "Democratic" house, lol. It's funny that you are speaking to me from within a community, as if I haven't been part of that community, that "we," for many years and posts.

Of course, I've never, in those years, "come in here to say that some Democrats are worse than Republicans."

I have said, and will continue saying, that sometimes, some Democrats, aren't good enough. That has nothing whatsoever to do with republicans.

It seems to me that, over time, the interpretation of rule # 2 has slowly shifted:

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

Those bolded portions don't seem to be vital, or accurate. "Other progressives" are only welcome if they toe the party line. DUers don't have to be supportive of "progressive" ideals, they just have to spin "progressive" the way the dlc ppi does. For a board that is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, there sure are too many calls for loyalty oaths, and suggestions that "other progressives" ought to find someplace else to spend their time.

I find that disturbing. It says to me that the more "hard core" democrats don't value "other" progressive participation. Not at DU, not at the voting booth. That seems like cutting off something for spite, does it not? And it's working. There are fewer and fewer "other progressives" here at DU. For the record, I am a registered Democrat, and have been for all the time I've been at DU. Just because I don't support bad policy, inaction, and poor candidates does not mean I am not a Democrat. I see nothing wrong with holding my party to a higher standard.

Perhaps the whole thing is a shift in the meaning of "progressive." Instead of "progressive" meaning liberal/left, it now means "progress according to the dlc."

That's my interpretation, anyway.

[wyldwolf]

15. yeah, but also according to the rules, people who do not support the DEMOCRAT in elections are...

...essentially second class citizens here. Every two years, third-party and "anyone but who the people nominated" types are effectively silenced here.

[LWolf]

16. As far as the presidential election goes,

I am supporting a Democrat. If a Democrat is nominated that I cannot, in good conscience, support in the general election, then it would be a violation of DU rules to campaign against that candidate, or for another candidate, DURING THE GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

Since there is not yet a nominee, and I AM supporting a Democrat in my primary, which is what Democratic nominees are currently campaigning for, I am certainly "allowed" to campaign AGAINST democratic candidates who oppose the democratic candidate I support.

When the convention gets here, anything I have to say about THAT campaign will probably be silenced. At least here at DU. That doesn't mean I won't be busy campaigning. I'll be focused on local and state races at that point. Living in an essentially red area, there's always plenty of work to do opposing the front-running republicans.

You, in particular, would probably find it interesting that I will probably (if he runs) be supporting my local state rep in a run against my republican senator, since he is quite moderate and recently switched party affiliation from "r" to "d." Ironic, isn't it?

You are correct about the "2nd class citizen" standard, and I think that's a shame. It reflects poorly on the party, imo.

[NaturalHigh]

19. I have no problems with the rules.

This is Skinner's website, and he can make the rules as he sees fit, just as any other website owner can for his or her site. I understand that if someone that I can't support wins the nomination, then I can't advocate voting against him or her on this board. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to vote for that candidate or support him or her in any way.

[MGKrebs]

17. A higher standard.

I'm not sure if the "haters" comment was directed at you, but there can be no doubt that there is some hateful things being said about Dem candidates around here sometimes. It shouldn't be surprising that those comments get challenged. But just choosing not to vote for a Dem is another thing, and I can't see how anyone would call that "hate". Depends how you express it I guess.

The funny thing is, I see DU drifting even further from the mainstream as time goes by. It seems like it is automatically assumed by many members that all corporations are inherently evil, and that all PACs are bad. The extremists who demand only 100% satisfaction right now are shouting louder and louder and those who disagree are portrayed as complicit to mass murder, fascism, and treason. That's no way to have a discussion.

[LWolf]

18. Past experience tells me that primaries are simply flooded

with hatefulness towards opposing candidates. The cute little "and then we'll all be friends again" meme about the general election reeks with hypocrisy, imo.

The "haters" remark doesn't have to be for me personally. It's directed at anyone who criticizes any Democrat, as I read it.

I see both things happening. I see conscious attempts to "purge" the left wing at DU, and I see it working. I also see more mainstream people becoming more extreme out of frustration. People finally reaching the point where one more political excuse for non-action triggers a shift for them.

[SaveElmer]

5. Count me among that number...nt

[BeyondGeography]

6. All it will take is a few glimpses of the other side for most people to respond the same way as you

In other words, fuck the Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

7. if they've not glimpsed the other side yet, what are they doing here?

[BeyondGeography]

8. The focus is internal right now

most of the passion is directed for or against Democrats. When the contest is over, the energy flows outward toward the opponent...same as it ever was.

[Alexander]

9. I will do the same, so maybe you can call off the attack dogs...

Your pro-Hillary friends who keep claiming I hate her and will never vote for her.

[Bitwit1234]

11. I will support them

And I would not swiftboat them on this journal like a lot of people are doing to the candidate they don't want to win the nomination