I'm not enjoying the increased gloating, attacks on posters and bad attitude coming from my camp.

[Political Heretic]

And... well, I just wanted to take one of my posts to say that it bothers me. :(

[Bensthename]

1. GObama

[splat]

5. It reflects badly on the candidate that he doesn't call off his dogs

[Bensthename]

17. Yes it does

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Somehow one doubts he's going to concern himself...

with what a comparatively miniscule subsection of his supporters are doing on a political message board with which he and his campaign are totally unaffiliated. It reflects badly on your intelligence to suggest that he should.

[splat]

33. Ever heard of 'Clean for Gene'? McCarthy's supporters won votes, didn't bully voters

Obama knows about it and encourages it. I respect him less for it.

[johnnydrama]

26. huh?

Obama's supposed to do something about posters on DU?

[Bensthename]

34. These people live in a small world to think that. That's for sure.

[quantass]

30. Have you seen "www.hillaryclinton.net"?!?!

Try posting 1 thing that shows even an image of Obama in a good light and you are instantly banned for life!
I was banned in less than 10 mins (i posted the video of the "Art of Speech" showcasing McCain and Obama -- nothing negative towards hillary but to highlight what Hillary would go up against in terms of John McCain)!!! No joke!

[Raine]

32. Yeah sure

all Obama has to do is monitor DU and get after his supporters. :eyes:

[Political Heretic]

39. You honestly thing he has any idea of the detailed goings on at DU?

I think you may be slightly out of touch with reality.

[Prophet 451]

61. You assume he has any control over them n/t

[cali]

2. yep

it's out of control.

[democrattotheend]

3. Same here

I was a Deaniac in 2004 and I remember how painful the end was. You won't ever see me gloating if Clinton drops out, and I apologize in advance to Clinton supporters for anyone in my camp who does.

[Peregrine Took]

10. I was a Deaniac too, and have the orange knit cap to prove it! Looking back

Howard's campaign seemed so innocent and untainted by the corruption of a big time political shenanigans

Obama, coming out out of the Emil Jones/Rich Daley wing of the Illinois Democratic party, seems just the opposite - cagey, manipulative, opportunistic and extremely cynical.

[AX10]

4. But this is a problem with the entire netroots.

Kos, Huffpost, Olbermann, Air America are all gloating and trying to force HRC out.
This kind of behavior is what helped to take the Whitehouse from the Dems in 72'.
Remember that.

[Peregrine Took]

6. Yes, its very off putting and its the "over the top" Obama supporters that

made me flee from him and into Hillary's domain.

At least her camp doesn't seem insane to me and that's something.

[splat]

7. Most of the sane ones just peek in here occasionally, see bedlam and leave

[Peregrine Took]

11. But why are the others so crazed? I don't get it. Nobody knew who the hell

he was until just a few months ago then, all of a sudden, he seemed to catch on like the flavor of the month.

[KoKo]

37. He was organizing way back is what I've read. He had all his campaign people and workers

lined up since when he ran for the Senate. So he's go a team in place that hit the ground running...and all over the Blogs. :shrug:

[Kurovski]

50. Obama made an enormous entrance to the National stage in the '04

Dem Convention. His speech was, as always, well-written and well delivered.

[AX10]

12. But this may...

come back to haunt Obama if he is the nominee in the fall.
This extremism by his supporters is not something that is going to help him in the fall.
It hurt McGovern quite badly.

[Melinda]

24. It was Humphrey's supporters that hurt McGovern, not McGovern supporters.

Humprey and his camp committed the equivalent of a swiftboating against McGovern, and it was those tactics that the GOP used against McGovern going toward Nov. of '72, not the other way around.

Just sayin' . ;)

[AX10]

27. No.

It was McGovern's supporters who villified the moderates in the party.
Causing many of them to stay home and some to vote for Nixon.

[Melinda]

31. Yes!

My son, who teaches both history and polyscience, and I discussed this issue the other night... I was a new mother (he was 2 months old in 11/72) and it was my 1st election (just 18), and I had been working for McGovern in CA (very exciting time for a young woman!). Anyway, my recollection is just as I stated.. unless I'm more like Hillary than I thought, lol.

Unfortunately, I haven't time to research this for you, but Commondreams addressed this a few months back:

The scenario is not a likely one. More likely is a repeat 1972, when South Dakota Senator George McGovern seemed to have the nomination secured by early spring but former Vice President Hubert Humphrey’s campaign kept “raising doubts” about McGovern to the very end. The Humphrey campaign and its allies pulled no punches. They suggested, with none-too-subtle encouragement from incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon’s surrogates, that a McGovern candidacy - and, presumably, a McGovern presidency — would be all about “acid, abortion and amnesty”: legalizing drugs, attacking moral values and forgiving military deserters.

Democrats did not buy it; they gave McGovern more primary wins and the nomination. But McGovern and his campaign were done severe damage. A World War II hero with a stellar Senate record on serious issues like providing food aid to the world - so stellar that Bob Dole and George Bush would ultimately celebrate his work in this particular area — was redefined as what Republicans and their amen corner in the media now refer to as a “McGovernite.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/05/7496/

If this isn't verification enough, I'll research this issue tommorrow, but am out the door for now.

:hi:

*edited to add link - oops!

[boppers]

52. Hm, Peregrine Took, I'm seeing it the other way.

I went with Obama because he had much less of an 'establishment taint' in my eyes. Funny how that works, Deaniacs going for different people, yet united by him....

Oh, and I'm seeing less insanity in the Obama camp, but I guess it's all relative to one's perspective. :shrug:

Want some kool-aid?

[GarbagemanLB]

22. The internet back in 72 was so slow.

[boppers]

53. In 72, it was still faster than you could type.

ARPAnet email delivery was no slouch, it was the long distance node-connection fees that were the killer.

...er...

waitasec, were you joking?

"The Internet" has actually been in various stages of development since 1962.

See:
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

[Hippo_Tron]

55. '72 wasn't winnable to begin with

Muskie would've lost by 10 points instead of 20 like McGovern did and nothing would've been different. MAYBE Ted Kennedy without Chappaquiddick would've been able to beat Nixon.

And also it ain't 1972. There are some lessons to be learned from that election but re-fighting those battles is futile. The electorate is very different from what it was in 1972.

[Awsi Dooger]

56. Correct

That's what bugs me on forums like this, posters who don't acknowledge situational influence. It trumps candidate vs. candidate almost every time.

Nixon in '72 was an incumbent with his party in power only one term. That's the single most favorable scenario imaginable. And there was nothing to disqualify him, on the typical fronts like economy or approval rating. Only if Watergate had been fully uncovered in warp speed could he have been in jeopardy.

Minus Chappaquiddick, it's very interesting whether Ted Kennedy would have run in '72. It would have been poor judgment, compared to an almost certain triumph if he waited until '76.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. I think in '72 he was still shaken up from Bobby's death

If both of my older brothers had been assassinated because they were president/campaigning for the office, I don't think I'd ever run.

[grantcart]

8. we need a gloat free zone

[AllentownJake]

9. Its a little hard for me right now

I'm on the ground battling. So to me winding down is not what is going on. We have not won yet....need I remind anyone. Get on the phone.

[Cha]

35. Thanks for the reminder, Jake..and

just for the record I have not seen any gloating.

[mckeown1128]

13. Some(like myself) are still upset by the treatment over the last

year by Clinton supporters who had(until Obama started winning) been cramming polls down our throats and bragging about how inevitable Hillary was. Then there were the 10,000 Obama/cult posts and the Obama supporters are sexist posts.

[PoliticalAmazon]

18. OH NO! DON'T TELL ME THEY WERE GLOATING!@! n/t

[Bensthename]

29. We need gloating rooms for each candidate. Some times you just want to gloat.

Maybe over something good the candidate said that day or something else. And say nothing demeaning about the other candidate. But still you get flamed for gloating. We shouldn't have to feal bad for gloating. Seriously.

[Lisa0825]

23. I feel the same way, but

I don't think Obama supporters gloating makes it better... it just ticks off the Hillary folks and makes them more likely to post snark of their own... .that whole "viscious circle" concept. So as clearly as I remember being constantly belittled and insulted, now that we have "the math," I hope that gloating or sarcastic posts will die down. I do my own "let it sink" for both sides... I won't kick a topic about either candidate that does not deserve to be kicked.

[Political Heretic]

40. I remember just from my time, that things could be really ugly from the other other side too.

That doesn't make me feel better, though.

[Bensthename]

14. DU needs an Obama room, Hillary room, debate room, and a rant/gloves off room.

Wanna gloat about Obama, take it to the Obama room. Same with Hillary. Want to talk policy and debate, take it to the debate room. Wanna rip someones ass because you are having a bad day, take it to the rant room.

Just an idea until this primary is over.

[PoliticalAmazon]

16. How boring would that be?! We aren't children, and should be able to...

...to handle each others' approach to message-board interaction.

[Bensthename]

19. Answer this. Should gloating about how good your candidate is doing a bad thing?

[PoliticalAmazon]

15. Please define difference between "gloating" and "being thrilled your...

candidate is doing so well."

I am growing a little weary of posters telling other posters how they should post. As Sun Tzu said, "It takes many types of soldiers to win a battle." We can't--and we shouldn't--all be diplomats, warriors, strategists, or any other type of soldier you can think of. Personally, I'm glad that there are "diplomats" amongst the Obama supporters. Even though that's not my style, it's damn fine to see another approach to supporting Obama.

Can't we have some appreciation for diversity?

Also, many Hillary supporters spin every little fucking thing to make them and Hillary victims. No, we can't be happy that Obama is winning...or we can't be happy too much...or whatever. If we do, they will start whining that we are "gloating."

I would suggest that perhaps using the tools this wonderful board system provides to you, one of which is the "ignore" feature, to filter out people you think are gloating might make your experience less unhappy.

[Political Heretic]

41. That's pretty easy to do:

Being thrilled that your candidate is doing so well, like I am, stays focused on the success of your candidate.

Gloating would be defined as insulting supporters of the other candidate and rubbing losses in their faces, mocking them, saying things designed to "sting" them or hurt them.

Celebration is directed "inward" if you will (inward meaning within the community of like minded people). Gloating is directed outward (designed to find joy in making someone else feel bad about events that benefit you and not them)

I didn't tell you how to post. I said I'm not enjoying it, which is my right.

[totodeinhere]

62. The problem is that a lot of Clinton supporters seem to be...

insulted no matter what you say to them. They take offense at the most benign of comments, and any criticism of Clinton whatsoever is called sexism.

[Auntie Bush]

20. Thanks, you heretic you!

:rofl:
Bothers me too. Thanks for being fair and reasonable.

[scheming daemons]

21. You have your own camp?

Cool....

[Political Heretic]

42. I do, actually...

...we have t-shirts. :hi:

[LisaM]

28. Thank you for the words and the sentiment

We're in a mixed household at the moment, but my boyfriend is not online and doesn't know what's going on. He doesn't like the incessant calls for Hillary to drop out and is always a little surprised when some of the online venom leaks into the airwaves. I also repeat some of the names that have been thrown around and that surprises him too (he's not that way).

Hillary isn't evil and Obama doesn't walk on water. For whatever reason, I just don't like the guy, and I can't really put my finger on it. He says the right things, though I find Hillary more liberal and do not like the fact that he is fine with MY tax money going to charter schools. But there's something in his persona that makes me completely unable to relate to him. It's not age - he and I are about the same age (though I admit that I am a late Boomer and he doesn't).

I am glad that he has some supporters who aren't freakishly over the top. It makes me want to try again to find something likeable in him. There must be something that's attracting people I know and like!

[FrenchieCat]

36. Losta of "stuff" bother me, but telling others how to communicate is a losing battle, IMO....

and a question. Did you ask the Clinton camp to stop gloating or attacking posters and having a bad attitude during their days of Pastorbating and when many were saying that this was the end of the Obama campaign? Did they do as you suggested back then? Cause that bothered me a great deal too.

[Political Heretic]

43. I didn't tell you how to post. I said I was not enjoying it. That's my right. To your question:

yes, I did.

[bain_sidhe]

38. Good message, but unfortunately

I suspect that half to two-thirds of the worst offenders (in both camps) are "operation chaos" types who WANT to stir up negativity. Sort of the cyber version of "lets you and him fight".

But, I join you in not liking it.

[mkultra]

44. i agree, it kind of seems that the hrc camp is firing up the trolls though

hopefully thy will stay home and not "come out fighting" again.

[Political Heretic]

48. Yes, believe me, I know there's been plenty of terrible behavior to go around.

:scared:

[Bensthename]

45. No Gloating Aloud.. That's sad we have to hide our enthusiasm.

Even when you are not slamming the other candidate, but only praising your own candidate, some will still view that as rude some how.. Amazing.

[Political Heretic]

47. Some will, I don't. Cheer our candidate on all you want.

Some will still be sore and not take kindly to it, but I defined what I think its a fairly decent working definition of the contrast between gloating and cheering. :) I'm not telling you what to do - as I said in my OP in just commenting that some things don't make me happy.

[quakerboy]

46. Thank you.

Ever there are those who are ungracious winners. And those who are trolls and moles and perverters. Tis life upon the internet.

[DeepModem Mom]

49. K&R

[Jed Dilligan]

51. I don't care

They bring it on themselves. I don't attack them unless I get attacked, but that happens every single time we interact.

[bridgit]

54. I think it's a viable look/slice into the demographic that supports BHO...

They're young, at least they say they are; they're proud of it, they keep casting aspersion upon working people and people they consider "uneducated", real nee-ner nee-ner stuff.

They live near to quads & university gymnasiums filled with waving pom-poms every time he mentions re-appropriating funds to college scholarships zippity doo-dah.

Many having recently popped out of high school and all the snark that that can imply; they bring it instead to the political arena. I don't see anyone from the BHO camp suggesting civilty...so they are emboldened/enabled as such to continue being childish.

Throw in some micro brew, a kegger, 1/2 off Levis, a coupon for a tattoo somewhere, and 3 months free broadband and voila! "increased gloating, attacks on posters and bad attitude coming" at'cha!!

But I was young once :cry: I even went to university :bounce:

[Raine]

57. There's not that much new to post

since we're inbetween primaries. It seems that all either side does is pick on each other. It probably won't change till the next primary happens.

[dkf]

58. You know I could care less what posters on DU are saying.

All we are doing is communicating what we are feeling...and sometimes we feel things that are less than admirable but they are entirely human.

You would like it better if people hide what they feel? If we are all nicey nicey and politically correct and all bottled up inside?

I hate that more.

If you want to restrain yourself from the more extreme rhetoric I say more power to you.

But I'm more interested in full on debate and discussion.

And sometimes when you are really extreme, you get a thought provoking post in response and you learn a few things.

I say its all good. But thats me.

[Life Long Dem]

59. Okay... time to get back to work. Fun time is over.

Serious time is now. No more playing games. Take a look around you. We are being fucked by our own Congress and here we sit fighting each other and not accomplishing what we need to do. Congress needs to go. Period.