So, when Clinton loses the nomination, will we still see

[Lerkfish]

loyalty oath threads to clinton here at DU?

you know, the ones that said anyone who doesn't support her should be banned.


There was a lot of investment early on in creating peer pressure for everyone here to accept her as the presumptive nominee.
There were a lot of threads making unfounded accusations and threats of banning that anyone who did not accept her as the nominee. The characterization was that anyone who did NOT support Clinton was a freeper or a disruptor.

FWIW, I found those threads chilling, and I among others kept trying to remind people the primaries hadn't even started yet.

well, now the primaries have started, and the race, although close, is clearly running against Clinton at this point.

So, I could ask the SAME TYPE OF QUESTION that clinton supporters here did back then: will everyone here get behind Obama as the candidate or risk being banned?

see how ridiculous that sounds? How fascist?

Just putting the shoe on the other foot to make us all think about whether such "loyalty oath" threads are appropriate here, regardless of the candidate.

[mwb970]

1. I remember when everyone here was sure it would be Hillary and Rudy!

I wrote a post last fall giving my opinion that neither Hillary nor Giuliani would be their party's nominee, drawing a response from someone (I forget who, darn) saying he would bet "any amount of money" it would be those two.

I wish I had taken him up on his bet! I could use the cash.

[liberalnurse]

2. What the heck are you rambling about?

Delusional ranting I assume. Please stop it. You serve no worthy purpose talking like that.

[durrrty libby]

4. Haha.That pic is so fucking perfect in so many ways. You rock

Wish I could recommend a post

[liberalnurse]

12. Pictures are so effective. Visual expression comes from the heart .

Safer on DU too these days. O8)

[Lerkfish]

7. no one likes their own words used against them, I suppose

you missed the point of my OP

[Lerkfish]

11. well, here's an example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3798629&mesg_id=3798629

[TexasObserver]

3. My reading of the rules is that you cannot advocate against a Democratic nominee at any level.

But there is no requirement to state affirmatively that you will vote for each and every Democrat on the ticket.

It's a prohibition not to use DU to advocate against Democrats who have become the nominee of the party. That's a far cry from requiring loyalty oaths to support all party nominees.

I vote straight Democratic because I decided long ago this is my team, and I'm pushing for Democratic successes across the board. I don't have to help any candidate I don't feel like helping, but I will pull the straight party lever.

[yellowdogintexas]

5. The Democrats have always been my team. Always will be.

straight party lever is a wonderful thing. Nothing about either of the final two still standing is going to cause me one eyeblink of concern come November. I will work for and have signs for and bumper stickers for the ticket. Period. Paragraph. End of story.

Can't wait actually to get new bumperstickers, my 2004 ones are faded. LOL.

I do have a personal friend running as a judge for re election on the opposition ticket mostly because it historicaly has been the only way to get elected in this county. so I usually color in all my little bars so I can vote for him. He is a good guy and his wife is a great Democrat .

I don't think he has an opponent this time, so straight ticket may be my choice in the fall. I don't have to be concerned with him at primary time anyway.

[QC]

6. There have been plenty of threads demanding that we pledge allegiance to Obama, too.

Loyalty oaths suck.

[Lerkfish]

8. ABSOLUTELY! thanks for getting the point I was making.

some people post without reading the entire OP.

[liberalnurse]

17. I was told that we must be humble followers.

:wow: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[calico1]

9. I have never demanded loyalty from anyone.

Nor do I like it demanded from me. Not the best way to acheive party unity, imo.

[Lerkfish]

10. EXACTLY! I opposed them then, and I would oppose them now

they were engineered to DIVIDE not unify.

[HughBeaumont]

13. Some acted as if there would be a mass banning of all non-Clinton supporters, past and current.

Like there'd be some kind of witch hunt and tombstoning. That's not the way things work. You simply can't say anything bad about said nominee. That doesn't go hand-in-hand with being banned outright or leaving DU on your own.

And did you ever notice how there were very, VERY few loyalty oath threads directed towards Obama or Edwards? They almost always boiled down to one candidate.

Two Americas had a great post regarding this sort of nonsense:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4173163#4173243

[Lerkfish]

14. good post: my point is that loyalty oath threads for ANY candidate is wrong

in the primary.

[MoonRiver]

15. I never asked for any loyalty oath, and I certainly won't give one.

I'll probably have to totally go off DU if BO wins. That's because at this point I doubt I can vote for him in the GE.

[Lerkfish]

16. and I have a link for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4173163&mesg_id=4173243

Spiffarino (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-18-08 01:47 AM
Original message
To Those Who Would Refuse To Vote for Hillary in the GE

Let me just say this -

Are you out of your fucking minds?

Before you go off in a huff to another post, please just think for a while and let it soak in: Who is the "best" Republican you could hope for to become the next president?

Did you say:

* McCain? Say goodbye to a woman's right to choose, then say hello to big business' best friend. Don't kid yourselves about Mr. Straight Talk...when it comes to policy he's only slightly to the left of Dick Cheney.

* Rudy? If unions are not already dead in America, they're certainly losing a lot of blood. Count on St. Rudy of 9/11 to cut their legs off and eat their hearts. He's never met a union he didn't like...to destroy.

* Huckabee? Not as scary as you think...unless you actually think.

* Thompson? Grandpa Fred is the Republican Triple Threat: The hair of Eisenhower, the work habits of Reagan, and the intellect of G.W. Bush.

* Romney? A political Rubik's Cube. He's on so many sides of so many issues, could anyone possibly know what he might do as president? That is, besides turning the White House into a casino for every right wing corporate lobbyist on K Street. That you can take to the bank.

[Yurovsky]

18. I'm still getting those responses ...

and while I'll admit I've been very strident in my criticism of HRC, that hardly makes me a goddamn freeper. On the contrary, my issues with her (& WJC) were that they always bent the way of the perceived political winds, in the hopes of bolstering their own standing, to hell with the party or the progressive movement.

Had she come out of the gate representing positions consistent with the beliefs she espoused earlier in her career, I think it would have been a slam dunk (as far as getting the nomination). And while the talking heads & corporate media will try to convince everyone that Democrats have to move right in order to win in November, I think this year, with the level of outrage & frustration at the GOP, a sincere and principled progressive candidate would have crushed whomever the GOP put forth in November. That includes Hillary (with her high negatives, driven higher, IMO, by progressives who are fed up with the DLC-rightward tilt of the party during the 1990s).

Once again, I'm back to think "what could have been" WRT Hillary (same thing I thought about WJC at the end of his presidency).

[jazzjunkysue]

19. What's the point of reading a board that's censored?

Might as well make it a fan page.

[Moochy]

22. I refer you to the book Necessary Illusions

http://books.google.com/books?id=t5yVao-mv8sC&dq=necessary+illusions

[Jawja]

20. I don't think so.

I think we will unite to defeat McCain and the criminal Rethugs in November.

It is CRUCIAL that these people are removed from power.

[lastliberalintexas]

21. I've seen the same things posted by Obama supporters

As one who is unsure of what I will do in November (my vote is lost here anyway), I find the demands for loyalty oaths from both sides appalling. Your candidate must get my vote the old fashioned way, by earning or stealing it. :)


And from what I understand of the rules, one doesn't have to vote for the Dem candidate. A poster just can't actually state that s/he is voting for another candidate or campaign for that person once our nominee is chosen. Plenty of people here in 2004 didn't vote for Kerry, they just weren't vocal about it. Although I voted for Kerry, I did so entirely unenthusiastically- but I did remain quiet about his deficiencies once he was the nominee.

[LWolf]

23. I will swear no loyalty oaths.

Not to Clinton, nor to Obama, nor to the Democratic Party.

If the party nominates either one of them, the party has chosen to leave my vote behind.

So be it.

[Moochy]

24. Sounds suspicioulsy like an oath

:evilgrin:

[LWolf]

25. You're right.

It's something of a loyalty oath; TO MYSELF, and to my principles.

That's where my loyalty resides.

[Moochy]

26. Sounds about right

How many have broken those oaths in the pursuit of "truth" that favors their candidate? Far too many I fear.