Bulk Reply

[NanceGreggs]

Rather than respond to some of the individuals who have been posting replies to my most recent threads or posts, I thought I’d simply address them all at once.

Alas, many (alleged) Hillary supporters here seem to be unaware of the fact that most DUers have access to their other posts on other threads, and are acutely aware of their positions, their words and their overall behavior.

Here’s a handy list of “don’ts” if you are seriously trying to make a point – or, alternatively, wish to be taken seriously.

Don’t quote previously-reviled RW bullshit artists and tell me they are now acceptable and/or reliable sources of opinion and/or news about Democratic candidates, the party as a whole, or that they offer a legitimate analysis of how our primary should be run.

Don’t point me to “opinion” pieces and tout them as unbiased journalism based on actual facts, poll results, or statistics. And in the name of all that is holy, don’t cite your own opinion as the last word on any subject.

Don’t post sweeping generalizations (e.g. millions of Democrats think Obama is running a dirty campaign) unless you have some stats to prove your point – or, in the alternative, you can actually name those millions of Democrats individually.

Don’t tell me my anger over Clinton’s remarks about “assassination” or “white voters” is “faux outrage” – especially when you’re the same person who posted endlessly about the catastrophic implications of “snub-gate” and “bitter-gate”.

Don’t tell me I don’t understand sexism, or refuse to acknowledge its existence, when I point out the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton has not lost the nomination due to the fact she’s a female.

Don’t insist that Hillary has always been adamant (regardless of her pledge and comments to the contrary) that the votes in FL and MI be counted, unless you can provide a link to any actual statement, from the candidate herself, to that effect pre-losing.

Don’t post the daily talking points from Hillary sites, verbatim, on cue and en masse, and tell me that I’m the kool-aid drinking cultist.

Don’t post replies that state, “You Obamabots are fucked-up in the head,” and then decry the childish tactic of name-calling.

Don’t state that if Hillary isn’t the nominee, you are leaving the Party, sitting out the election, or voting for McCain, followed by a statement that it is the Obama supporters who are ruining our chances to win in November.

Don’t tell me you won’t vote for Obama because his supporters have been mean to you on this website or any other, and expect to be treated as though you are a mature, politically astute adult.

Don’t post “Obama will NEVER WIN the GE” – with or without the gratuitous threat to come back and yell I told you so after the loss you are so obviously hoping for – along with your heartfelt assurances that you’re a loyal Democrat who has the party’s best interests at heart.

Don’t declare that Obama – who is ahead in delegates and SDs – is about to “steal the election through backroom deals” while, at the same time, promoting the idea that if Hillary can convince those same delegates and SDs to change their minds and vote for her, despite the will of the people, she will be the legitimate nominee.

Don’t talk about Hillary’s sniper-fire whopper and Obama’s comment about “fifty-seven states” as being comparable examples of inadvertently mis-speaking.

Don’t wag your finger in my face and say “shame, shame” when I criticize your candidate for something she has actually said or done, while countering with what Obama’s supporters have said or done.

Don’t accuse me of being pissed-off by the MSM’s interpretation of Hillary’s statements when I’ve heard them for myself, firsthand, and been pissed-off by their content, not the spin.

Don’t lecture me about being divisive when I fail to coddle those among you who refuse to unite behind our nominee without being courted, romanced, and baby-talked into doing what’s right for our party, and our country.

Don’t tell me that I, as an Obama supporter, am somehow responsible for convincing you, as a Hillary supporter, that Obama (D) is preferable to McCain (R).

All this to say that WE WILL WIN this come November – with or without you. So just keep don’t-ing if you must, while the rest of us keep our eye on the prize.

[apocalypsehow]

1. Ought to be required reading to access GD: P. K & R.

:thumbsup:

[quickesst]

76. You're wrong...

and the op is still in denial. It should be required reading to gain access to Obama Underground. Last time I looked, and it may not last, access to Democratic Underground requires you to be a Democrat, and kneeling at the alter would come under the heading of "optional". Thanks.
quickesst

[JTFrog]

77. "I made a conscious decision to place my "Vote For Hillary" button on my altar."

It's "altar" not alter. It doesn't appear you actually meant kneeling at "the change", although it would make what you said much more clever.

If you can find a similar post in DU from an Obama supporter, then perhaps we can talk about your definition of the word denial.

You just added credibility to the OP. "Don't...tell me that I’m the kool-aid drinking cultist."

[The Doctor.]

88. If one calls oneself "quickesst",

One should make an effort to not be so slow.

There was a time when the majority of DUers preferred Democrat Ned Lamont to then Democrat Joe Leiberman. That didn't make it 'Lamont Underground', that made it "The-place-where-the-majority-of-people-posting-are-intelligent-enough-to-see-the-most-favorable-candidate-in-contrast-to-the-blatant-opportunist-the-country-doesn't-want-or-need Underground".

You can join that place anytime... and I suggest you hurry, "quickesst".

[AntiFascist]

169. Excellent point...

a truly democratic forum should reflect the majority opinion, afterall, but still allow the minority voice without disruption. If Hillary supporters are upset about this then they can go off and form SpecialInterest Underground where The Powerful never give up and influence can be bought.

[ExPatLeftist]

95. Irony much?

Of course this will fly over your head like so much else...

[CaptJasHook]

94. K&R I am bookmarking this thread and going to link it at least 3 times everyday I am online

[WilliamPitt]

2. Don't try to teach a pig to dance.

You get dirty and the pig gets angry.

;)

Your candidate sucks.

!!!!11111!!!1!11!

[mrbluto]

66. eh, a weak post.

Comparison to a pig isn't useful, and is disrespectful.

Not giving any reason for your opinion is damn useless.

You live in a democracy and your freedom of speech is defended.(somewhat)

This is what you do with it?

My grandfathers, and those of many others, didn't fight WWII so you can just pop in and say Obama sucks.

That's totally useless.

Why do you think that?

Are you afraid someone might respond and persuade you to change your mind?

[PVnRT]

81. Wow. I felt the wind from that post flying over your head.

[mrbluto]

118. Yes - I tend to duck.

Especially when what is hurled is self-indulgent ill-formed leaden text riddled with demogogic crowd-pleasers.

Thanks for the complement. I pride myself on my ability to dodge bullsh*t.

Including yours.

[wysimdnwyg]

119. You've been here a year...

and have over 800 posts and you still don't understand Will's wit? Perhaps he should use the :sarcasm: emote to help you out.

[mrbluto]

122. Wouldn't be the first time I've missed the point of a post.

Maybe you can help me out.

What am I missing?

I'm not too proud. If your explanation makes sense, then I'll give it a whirl.

[mrbluto]

123. And.......

Now that I look back at my post I sound a bit pompous, even to myself.

I plead fatigue and exasperation.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

140. I like the pigs dancing version.

I'm familar with, "never teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time, and it annoys the pig."

Another good one to keep in your memory bank, "a person hears what they want to hear and disregards the rest."

[mlevans]

171. Ahhh...not only a good Democrat, but a Heinlein fan to boot.

[11 Bravo]

187. I grok that.

[swimmernsecretsea]

175. I'm more familiar with that one.

And I prefer it, because it lends perspective because of the portion that says "...and it annoys the pig." Some prefer to come to an idea, rather than have an idea come to them. Bringing it to them might just annoy them so much they don't listen to it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

177. The Boxer

"still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

Now I'm listening to Paul Simon singing this over and over in my head....nice ear worm :)

[KSinTX]

157. Surprising. After reading your mainstream media post

and bookmarking your journal, I was expecting something a little different here.

[tularetom]

3. K & R from a long time clinton skeptic

[Sparkly]

4. I'm just thankful you aren't advising Obama's campaign!!

Don’t tell me that I, as an Obama supporter, am somehow responsible for convincing you, as a Hillary supporter, that Obama (D) is preferable to McCain (R).

All this to say that WE WILL WIN this come November – with or without you.

Good Gawd! :wow:

[Zomby Woof]

23. That was an awfully dumb comment, wasn't it?

The fact is, real Hillary supporters WILL vote for Obama no matter what. No amount of stupid behavior or wildly moronic posts by Obama's True Believers will change that. We're smart enough not to base our votes on how people act on a message board. We're Democrats, and we will vote our ticket in November.

Additionally, anyone on here claiming they are a Hillary supporter and threatening to vote for McCain is a troll OR a provocateur. Obama supporters know this, but they get more views/recommends/huzzahs when they react in a likewise troll-like manner. If they do NOT know this, then the alternative is that they are colossally stupid. I hope (and unite and change) for the former.

As for the provocateurs - I will grant you that purely for shit-stirring value, and the cheap thrill of poking the Obama beehive, SOME Hillary supporters will say they are voting for McCain (or won't vote at all, which is just as bad). I admit they do the rest of her supporters no favor stooping down to that level. But I understand the tempting impulse. The hive does have its entertainment value, sending the needle on the Harrumph-o-Meter into the red zone. Still, it's best to just leave them bee, I mean be. ;-)

Not only will real Hillary supporters vote for Obama - they will do so precisely because he CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US, and WE DO NOT WANT MCCAIN AS PRESIDENT.

[Sparkly]

26. "Real Hillary Supporters"

Frankly, I don't want to hear about "Real Hillary Supporters" or "Real Democrats" or "Real Murcans" anymore. We need the votes of people who voted for BUSH himself, for cryin' out loud. There is no room for alienating ANYbody.

[lojasmo]

43. 65% of bush voters now dissapprove of Bush.

FUCK "democrats" who won't get behind the nominee. We have no obligation to rehabilitate the brain dead.

[polmaven]

96. Now THAT is what

I've been talking about.

Of COURSE the vast majority of long time DUers will vote for "The Democrat". It is the (I)s and the left leaning (R)s that need to be convinced, and if the attitude hate and vitriol that has been shown to anyone who dares to criticize Senator Obama for anything, but are spewing the crap that Senator Clinton can/has done nothing at all right is shown to the general public it will most certainly lose him many more votes that it will gain him. That is the attitude I see in this OP.

I really believe that many here actually believe that Senator Obama is absolutely flawless, and beyond scrutiny. Perfect people DO NOT EXIST, and those who think they are perfect are very, very scary. We have had one of those for 2,686 days. (Not that I'm counting).

The Obama supporters need to STOP with the hatred, with the constant charges of racism, with the ATTITUDE in general, and begin convincing those who are not as politically minded as we are that he will be right for this country....Not just why McCain is not right.


Ok....rant over....(I hear the boss coming...Gotta go!).

[ExPatLeftist]

105. INDIVIDUALS, not "THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS"

Put away the big brush. You act as if the acts of a few individuals represents an entire group of people. That kind of thinking is what Bush has pushed for the last 7+ years. We need a fundamental change. And I would argue that a huge step toward that is to address individuals for their "infractions" rather than scold entire swathes of people who may share nothing in common other than their choice of candidate. This kind of thing is simply ignorant.

[polmaven]

129. You're right.

The last sentence should read that those individual Obama supporters who as so filled with hate need to stop. Most of you who are just like the majority of Clinton supporters. We support our candidates because we support our candidates. Not because we hate the other.

My apologies for not being clear enough on that.

[AspenRose]

131. Thank you

As I stated to someone yesterday, Obama was my THIRD choice. I'm supporting the party and getting behind the presumptive nominee, and there are others like me who are lining up behind him, even though he was not their first, or second, or sometimes even third choice.

To make ALL Obama supporters sound like they've all supported him from the beginning is dishonest. And to broadbrush for the actions of a few is irresponsible.

Of course, I also realize this is going to fall on some deaf ears. :eyes:

[VolcanoJen]

59. Interesting.

Certainly, it's a weird dichotomy, the message-board Hillary supporters vs. the real-life Hillary supporters, both of whom I know and love.

The ones I know in flesh and blood are a little irked, but pretty much started thinking Obama was the nominee right after she didn't get a slam-dunk in Texas. They grouse a little, but are whole-heartedly supporting him at this point.

And then there are the provacateurs, the ones who post the maps and the talking points and the swiftboating-Obama's-Uncle smears and what have you. It's like swimming in two different oceans simultaneously.

I can see where there may be entertainment value in poking this thing you call a "beehive" but as my long-time friend, to read that from you did ruffle my feathers a bit. You know me well enough to know that I get a bit attached but I have to tell you that it made me just a little bit sad to read that.

Ah, well. Can't always agree on everything. The Reds do have a better record than the Mariners, though. Dodgers, not so much. Of course, it's only May.

:hug: Zomby :hug: and may we both find our happy ending in November.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

200. Even Broadcast TV gets it now

Your line of "It's like swimming in two different oceans simultaneously." jumped out at me.

A couple nights ago ABC evening news ran a piece on "Two Realities" showing Hillary and Bill and calling out the lies on "popular vote" which isn't the criteria anyway.

Then they jumped to Senator Obama and Senator McCain campaigning against each other.

It amazes me how both Clintons believe their spin so much that they expand upon it each time they speak, compounding the lie, mis-speak, over-tiredness, whatever they call it this week, rather than admitting error and moving on. The maps, the talking points, the charts - all based upon a simple lie about the numbers.

Sad.

[cliffordu]

207. What Jen said.

With the exception of her baseball prattle.

[Zomby Woof]

208. You're no bee, honey

I never counted you among the 'hive', for what it's worth. I was dismissing the juvenile supportes on both sides, and making it clear that just because I understand the impulse to provoke, doesn't mean I condone it.

I don't consider myself a hardcore Hillary supporter. I was behind Edwards, and could have tossed a coin either way after he dropped out. But I trust my gut, especially in politics, and while Hillary has many deep and varied flaws (I could go on for pages about her shortcomings if so inclined), I think Obama is a shyster and a con man who will lead this party over a cliff like the Pied Piper. I haven't forgotten his Bidenesque overtures to the Republicans and the "purple state" horsehit from not so long ago. Just wait until he gets his first NSA briefing. You are going to see capitulation, spin, and triangulation that would leave Bill Clinton dizzy. But it will be delivered with hosannas and amens to make it more palatable.

"Change" is one of the oldest saws in showbiz, I mean politics. Let's face it, "change" doesn't need a hard sell - by default anything but Bush or McCain is "change" on a grand scale. But I think the expectations for Obama are unrealistically high, and his hardcore base will either be disillusioned, or put themselves in deep denial and rationalization about his inevitable failures. There will probably be a split, and we will watch both sides go at it in April or so.

I am getting this out of my system now, while the race draws to its interminable end. I will vote for Obama, but any money I donate goes to the DNC to fight McCain. I can't get worked up about him. I smell snake oil with him, and have since he first emerged on the national scene. I have a built-in immunity to soaring rhetoric. I want, and demand, substance.

I have also posted in other threads that I would be very happy with Jim Webb as the VP pick. I would be less than excited about Richardson, Sebelius, or gawd forbid - Biden. They are all rank and file hacks of the old school. Especially MBNA Joe.

Anyway, there's the unvarnished ZombyTroof for you, as I have been delivering it around here for nearly 7 years. :hug: JenJen :hug:

[cliffordu]

217. DUPE>IGNORE

[PVnRT]

82. Damn, a ZombyWoof sighting

Get me my coffee.

[The Doctor.]

89. Not at all.

It's fairly straightforward;

'If you are a Clinton supporter who will not vote for Obama unless I convince you to, then you're not worth the time/hassle/whatever.'

We pretty much agree on that point ZW.

That comment doesn't even touch on the need to convince anyone else as the entire post only deals with Clinton supporters who fit the criteria... Not you, not Sparkly (with a notable exception), not any consciencious Democrat.

There was nothing 'dumb' about that comment at all, for the convincing of non-Democrats is an entirely separate issue from that which the post addresses.

Seriously, it's like sitting through a lecture on velociraptors and then asking what all of that had to do with the hypsilophodon.

[shagsak]

144. I hope you're right

After looking at various forums, websites and polls, Im reaching the conclusion that many Hillsups WILL vote for McOldandSick to "teach the Democratic party a lesson". Add that to the falling number of Hillsups on DU and I have to wonder if that could really happen.

[KSinTX]

158. We're Democrats. We're smart.

not a snark. It's a take-off on an unofficial motto our Army company used in response to the attempted put-downs by the more combat-oriented elites that we were somehow soft and just a bunch of eggheads. So, we just took their jabs and turned it into a rally cry. We may not have had their pretty berets, but we had smarts, as they told it. It's not terribly unlike what's happening here and you said it all so well. The idea that any of us would cast a vote against our best interests based on the taunts of members of a board is ludicrous - We're Democrats. We're smart.

[Asgaya Dihi]

68. The advice was fine

Democrats got on a bad road a lot of years ago when they decided the way to beat the repubs was to be more like them instead of to establish an identity of our own. Goes back at least to the 70's and got worse over time as the DLC became entrenched and compromise politics got to be the only way we do business. Problem is we're pretty sure we've got to compromise and we do it on everything, they are pretty sure they don't have to compromise so they don't on much of anything. Guess which direction that leaves the nation moving in? The constant rightward trend of politics on this nation has been driven at least in part by dems.

If the only way to win the election is through extortion and payoffs, offering Clinton, the repubs, or anyone else a payoff for bad behavior, then maybe it's better to take the chance and stand on principle for a change. Sure, we might lose that one, but if we're right and we stick to it instead of caving as we normally do maybe the public would eventually learn to trust us instead of thinking as they currently do that there's little difference between the parties, we're all in it for ourselves anyway. So far they've been more than half right and rewarding bad behavior yet again just reinforces the trend. They'll only believe in change if they can trust us to follow through on it.

[Sparkly]

180. None of which has anything to do with my post.

:shrug:

[ExPatLeftist]

103. The point seems to be that people need to stop acting like crybabies

People will decide for themselves for whom they will vote. Most of us realize that there is not a damn thing that we can do to change that decision in people who have already made up their minds.

The fact is that Nance does NOT work for the Obama campaign, and therefore can state her opinion flat out without it reflecting on the candidate himself (at least in the eyes of those with a brain).


Those that HONESTLY will not vote for a candidate based on something that nominal supporters of that candidate have said to them need to simply GROW UP. How hard is it to comprehend that the voice of every supporter does not represent the candidate? We each own our own words, nothing more. And there have been loudmouthed jerks supporting every candidate since the beginning of time.

If you honestly need to be coddled by supporters of the Democratic nominee in order to tick the "D" box come November, then I think you will find that many will tell you to not let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Why? Because they are mean? Because they want to lose? No, because they are adults that realize that you will do what you will do regardless. AND because this very tactic is illogical and absurd and belongs in a high-school somewhere: "I'd vote for Nancy, but Bill said something mean to me the other day and HE is voting for Nancy!" Ridiculous. Anyone thinking like this simply needs to grow the hell up. And no, I for one will be no be blackmailed by people for their OWN votes. They are theirs to do with what they choose. Wanna vote for McCain? Your choice, your vote. I just expect not to have to listen to some drivel about how it is somehow MY fault if that warmonger wins...

[Sparkly]

183. As I said above: There is no room for alienating ANYbody.

That is my point. There is no room for alienating ANYbody. Campaigns are intended to get every single vote possible -- not to act like there's an exclusive club of Heathers sneering, "We don't need YOU."

It's a campaign to GET VOTES, not to win some sort of emotional satisfaction.

[RaleighNCDUer]

193. OTOH, we can't be all things to all people.

We can't try to get republican votes by pretending to be republicans. We can't deny the role of interventionist government - i.e., social security, medicaid - just to get the votes of libertarians. And we can't let corporations write the laws just to get the votes of the DLCers.

We are Democrats, and stand for Democratic party principles. We support labor and farmers, unions and collectives; we honor education, and admit to the need for taxes to support it; we want open government, not government by surprise.

And that DOES mean alienating some.

Tough shit.

[Sparkly]

209. No kidding.

But the point of an election campaign is to get elected. That means getting as many votes as possible. Telling Democrats "We don't need you" is NOT helpful, and you will NOT see Obama and his campaign saying any such thing, and perhaps that should serve as an example.

[ExPatLeftist]

229. Who said, "We don't need you"?

"We will do it with or without you" is a completely different statement.

Everyone has their own boundaries. Expecting Nance or anyone else to live by yours is both hopeless and illogical, IMO.

[Sparkly]

232. "We will do it with or without you"

I don't understand how that's a "completely different statement." Would you explain please?

[ExPatLeftist]

236. Yes, that is easy.

Saying "we don't need you", which no one did, would mean that we do not care whether those holding their own votes hostage end up voting for the Democratic nominee or not. But of course most of us do care (I do and I think others do, at least), and would like the support of everyone, but will put Obama in the White House regardless, hence, "We will do it with or without you." There is a distinct difference between those two statements. One is divisive, the other is simply a statement of determination.

In the end, people decide what to do with their own votes. Want to vote for McCain? Then do it. It sucks, but it is not my vote to decide. But I will not play games with people so that they vote the way I want them to (and that they themselves, for the most part, want to vote, but just want to get schmoozed first).

Your vote, your decision (I mean this in the context of the general "you" - as in "one", not necessarily you specifically). If you want to vote based on the merits of the candidates in the GE, great, and your choice. If you want to vote based on what some faceless poster put on an Internet chat board, then that is IMO patently LAME AND IMMATURE AS HELL, but it is also your choice.

If Obama does not win the GE, it will be in part because people have themselves decided that their own sour grapes outweigh the future of our nation, not because people didn't kiss their ass enough. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, including for whom they vote AND what they post. But each individual owns that alone, not as a group.

[ExPatLeftist]

195. With the apparent current criteria of "anything a few Obama supporters say...

...represents Obama and all his supporters", then yeah, a whole hell of a lot of people are going to be alienated. And would always be in that setting.

But what is Obama himself doing to alienate anyone? Nothing, unless it offends people that he compliments Hillary Clinton regularly. And many of us are civil and reaching out to Clinton supporters, but how do you expect anyone to control millions of individuals? Someone is going to say something to bug someone... and then what? Vote for McCain?

I have heard the threats about not voting or voting for McCain ad nauseum lately... But no one has outlined what they expect... Vote for McCain if...what?? Anyone on the Internet ever calls Hillary a bad name again? Please tell me, what is the criteria which Obama and his supporters must meet in order to not alienate anyone?

[Sparkly]

210. You're building strawmen.

The point is: We need votes. We need to bring people in, not turn them off.

No, you will NOT see Obama going out of his way to alienate people, nor should anyone who wants him to get elected.

[ExPatLeftist]

227. I am not building strawmen, I am addressing a common and very real threat I hear here

and trying to figure out what in reality can be done. I personally am doing what I can to alienate no one, but I can only control me. I hear every day here, multiple times, anger and accusations and threats about how Obama supporters had better be nice or Clinton supporters will not vote or will vote McCain, but the specifics of that have never been defined, so I am trying to get to the bottom of what it is that those people really want. I am no closer after asking.

The fact is, some people will say shit (and do - on BOTH sides). But you say yourself that Obama himself is not alienating people, so is that not enough to gain your support, regardless of the rants of a few people that claim to support him?

[Sparkly]

233. No doubt in my mind I'll vote for Obama.

This isn't about me.

[angstlessk]

152. this is named 'BULK REPLY'...because it is referring to people who have

posted in response to HER (Nance Greggs) posts..not advising the Obama campaign...see how black/white you can become with blinders??

[Sparkly]

182. Um... what?

Evidently my subject line was difficult to understand. :shrug:

[angstlessk]

184. I proally replied to the wrong poster???

so solly! tis the end of silly season, after all! :hi:

[TahitiNut]

5. What've you got against Free Speech, Hitler?

:sarcasm:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(Nice summation, Nance!) :thumbsup:

[ExPatLeftist]

106. HAHA damn, you almost got me there...

I was about to get froggy til I saw the body text of your comment :D

[L0oniX]

6. Fire in the hole...

:nuke: Nail hit on head again Nance. :thumbsup:

[Kittycat]

7. Excellent as always.

:clap:

[billyoc]

8. Hey, if they followed those guidelines I'd have nobody to torment!

:spank:

[cliffordu]

12. That's right, who would I beartrap, bait, sneer at or snark??

[SwampG8r]

124. yeah i get a lot of laughs off these guys

[NC_Nurse]

9. K&R. I'm sick of this bullshit too. I'm fine with true support of Hillary, but

don't give me this horseshit and expect me to believe your a Democrat. PUHLEEZE!

[Tim4319]

10. All I have to say is......

Wow!

[cliffordu]

11. Nice post, Nance!

Now, stand by for the inevitable avalanche of flaming bullshit.....



K&R


:patriot:

[cliffordu]

13. You forgot to address it to "Occupant"

:rofl:

[Wetzelbill]

15. ......

:spray:

[Wetzelbill]

14. The one thing I notice over and over and over

Is that Obama supporters will criticize Hillary, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, about something, while Hillary supporters seem to criticize Obama's supporters much more than they do him. I have long said that a certain segment of Obama's supporters don't do him any favors, but does that change his positions or what type of president he might be? It seems that Hillary's supporters don't like him almost specifically because they don't like some of his supporters. I don't get that. I have actually seen before Hillary supporters citing something Obama's supporters said as evidence that Obama is running a dirty campaign. Huh? :)



I am glad I'm voting for myself, to hell with all of you. :)

[AspenRose]

134. Yes

*nodding*

[yardwork]

146. I think that's because Obama hasn't done many things worthy of criticism.

Lately, I've been feeling very critical of Hillary's actions and words. Meanwhile, Obama has been pretty much taking the high road.

That says a lot about both candidates right there. One (Obama) has recovered from some earlier mistakes and forged ahead with a positive campaign. The other (Hillary) has been on the defensive and it shows. The "kitchen sink" strategy has made Hillary look bad, imo.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

170. I notice the tendency to demand that Obama renounce people who have nothing to do with his campaign

Like Randi Rhodes. She said an offensive thing on the stage at a comedy club but she's not an official surrogate for the Obama campaign. Unlike Geraldine Ferraro, who was directly connected to the Clinton campaign. Clinton supporters think we aren't aware of the distinction when they conflate Rhodes with Ferraro.

[Labors of Hercules]

16. Nance, do you read minds?

Or is it just that you write things that are so amazingly true as to be undeniably appealing?

Want to grab a cup of coffee sometime? ~LoH

[TahitiNut]

25. That's a PERFECT editorial cartoon!

Wow. :wow:

[DerekJ]

27. Don't listen to him Nance. The coffee place I know serves much better coffee.

[Labors of Hercules]

29. shameless plug...

THE BEST!!!

[mrbluto]

65. No, but she thinks she can "write minds"

At least that's what it seems.

Thank god she's incorrect.

Wait - She does seem to get a lot of heartfelt kudos for patently demogogic tripe.

Maybe she can "write minds" of a certain type of person.

[Labors of Hercules]

93. "Maybe she can "write minds" of a certain type of person..."

yes. Those would be DEMOCRATS... Perhaps you've met one?

No, judging by your post, I guess you haven't. shame. :eyes:

[mrbluto]

98. Yes! Reach for that gun!

Because if someone is critical of someone you like they simply aren't a Democrat!

Don't engage them, ask no probing questions - there isn't possibly a chance to learn something, or at least discover a better way to get your point across.

Nope. Just judge them, question their allegiance, then luxuriate in swagger, you know, like a Republican.

Then have your little emoticon roll it's eyes at them.

Wow. What a champion of Democracy you are!

You've probably met plenty of Democrats.

Too bad none of it has rubbed off on you.

[Labors of Hercules]

115. Hahahaha. You funny...

Criticize me for implying you are not a Democrat, and then do precisely the same thing to me.

That is known as hypocrisy:

hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

I would suggest that given we are on opposite sides of your initial criticism of an established DEMOCRAT here on DU whose opinions I respect, it is HIGHLY unlikely that BOTH of us are Republican.

[mrbluto]

121. Are you kidding me?

Ever hear the old joke about a room with ten democrats and eleven opinions?

Besides, I never accused you of being a Republican. Or that you weren't a Democrat.

I'm very careful about such things.

No - I suggested your swagger was like a Republican's. Big difference.

The flaw is not congenital and there's still time to remedy the ailment.

[Labors of Hercules]

156. Your perception is off...

I take issue with you referring to Nance's writing as "patently demogogic tripe".

If you begin with a broad brushed swagger, don't bitch about being painted with it yourself. Your attitude and generalizations paint an image that I don't recognize in ANY Democrat and ESPECIALLY not any Obama supporter I know.

If you take issue with the Democratic Primary process, why didn't you say so? You would find that most of us agree with you on that point. Nance was talking about her objections to the things Hillary supporters expect of others here on DU specifically. She has valid points.

and try not to be so touchy... I couldn't care less if you call me a Republican or not, (just as long as you don't expect me to hang out with one for longer than a few minutes). :puke:

[SwampG8r]

130. ask no probing questions

heres a question
who does it benefit in the long run, for hillary to keep in the race when by every realistic measure she has lost?who does it help?

please do not use todays bull crap talking points of how she is winning if you do this or you do that

by every measure that the democratic party uses to choose its nominee (delegates available)
she is out of contention
so
who does it benefit in the long run for hillary to keep in the race when by every realistic measure she has lost?who does it help?
and if your reply is
"the rules committee is meeting on saturday" then, will you begin to support the nominee after they rule ?
if your reply is "she can appeal it" then at what point do you ever admit the possibility of harm caused by her actions?
will we indeed have to drag you all kicking and screaming from the convenion stage?

[mrbluto]

145. Here's some news for ya - sit down, 'cuz it's a duzy!

I already support Obama.

Edwards endorsed him, and, while I've done my own thinking on the matter, I'll say "If he's good enough for Edwards, he's good enough for me."

So, now as a sincere supporter, I worry about what I think the biggest problem is.

And you know what that is?

The shitty attitude of some Obama supporters.

It's divisive, it's destructive, it's overkill, and it's damaging one of the tools Obama will have to depend on (the party).

I don't think Obama would advise it, and he seems like a pretty smart guy to me. What do you think?

I also consider the long run.

I think the primary system needs a complete over haul, which will never happen if we don't soberly analyise what's wrong with it and strike while the iron is hot. I'd love it if we got both Obama and Clinton to vow that, if chosen as nominee, they'd commit to fixing it whether they win or lose the general election.

Whoever balks at that is not the candidate for me.

What do you think Obama would do? I think he'd commit. He doesn't seem like the type to depend upon a flawed system for anything except, perhaps, to get a foot in the door and make his case for fixing that flawed system.

[ExPatLeftist]

112. Do you have an actual point or just like to flame with no content? n/t

[cliffordu]

218. Too bad you can't write as well as she can,

Maybe your opinion would be worth a shit.

FAIL.

[mrbluto]

223. Oh! Yah got me! I'm so crushed!

Such a comment coming from you in a one liner wit a swear in it - I'm at a total loss as how to keep my self-worth intact!

If anyone is a judge of good writing, clearly it is you.

And you added the word "Fail"!

So cruel! How could you shatter my delicate ego like that?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. Mind if I borrow this?

K & R

[mrbluto]

102. Get "it" inspected first.

There's some damage and flaws to it that existed before you get custody.

You wouldn't have to pay for them when you go to return it.

[ExPatLeftist]

113. Why not point out the "damage" and "flaws" then rather than just sniping? n/t

[mrbluto]

126. I have, elsewhere, in other posts.

In this and other threads.

Google me. You'll see.

[ExPatLeftist]

132. Can't be bothered Googling someone who comes in and snipes and then

when asked for any substance whatsoever replies, "Google me". That is just patently fucking lame.

[mrbluto]

135. It's fucking lame not to look elsewhere on the same fucking page.

But if you need an excuse to remain ignorant, who am I to tell you that huffy righteousness (such as yours) isn't going to work (to satify one's own need to be justified) when it obviously does for so many.

[ExPatLeftist]

141. I have read all of your posts on this page

and not seen anything but attacks and snipes, nothing of any substance.

Besides, the way tohave a decent discusiion is not to begin by saying "go find something I wrote elsewhere"...

[sniffa]

179. That's why I finally put him on ignore

Much better thread now. :D

[ExPatLeftist]

189. I am trying to live with no one on ignore...

Very difficult at times... But at least, uh, "interesting". ;)

[GoneOffShore]

215. It may be interesting, but I find that my blood pressure goes up.

So, my ignore list gets longer.

Sometimes on the more virulent threads I'll see one response and a whole sub thread of Ignored answering Ignored. It's like looking at a Persian carpet - there's a nice symmetry to it with a little flaw in the edge.

I'm an equal opportunity ignorer.

[mrbluto]

221. Awwww. I'm so hurt!

But you put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalla la".

Because that is sooooooo democratic.

[ExPatLeftist]

239. Tell me, how exactly is ignoring someone's rants "undemocratic"?

Do you stop and listen to the rants of every street corner preacher, until they are finished, in the name of "democracy"? Do you really think anyone has time to fully listen to everyone else?

[mrbluto]

127. Also....

...I'm glad that you took the tack that you did with your comment.

It's not sniping on it's own, it's sniping with no added info that drains conversation of it's usefulness here on DU.

Your response is a constructive one. (IMHO)

[ExPatLeftist]

133. Then why not respond to it with some substance rather than telling me to "Google" you? n/t

[mrbluto]

136. I'm starting to get tired?

I am. I work overnight. Starting to fade.

Sheer lack of stamina?

Any of those.

[Mooney]

18. God bless you.

[Window]

19. K/R.

:kick:

[Irishonly]

20. Excellent as always

However, you forgot finger gate.:evilgrin:

[Willo]

21. Doesn't leave many options for their preferred posts

Works for me!:thumbsup:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

22. Don't try to polish a turd.

Unless you can then write a tell-all about the polishing process and make a mint.

[reflection]

24. Ahhhh. A Nance post

Is like a big fat steak, a stiff drink, and an after-dinner cigar. A real pleasure.

[Duder]

28. A hefty response...

Well said as always NanceGreggs.

[NanceGreggs]

34. "Bitter Sweetie for Obama" ...

... sounds like a GREAT new flavour for a Ben & Jerrie's ice cream confection!

[beac]

52. Yum! Put me down for a pint!

[Straight Shooter]

30. Seventeen chastising "dont's"

That must be a record on DU.

[Zhade]

31. K/R, and may I add - if you do any of these anyway, please DO stop being a fucking asshole.

NT!

[The Doctor.]

90. I'm just going to C+P

lines from here as responses for a bit.

[DerekJ]

32. K&R

[oxbow]

33. big whoop. wanna fight about it?

sorry, there's just something in the air...and I think it's crazy!

[bvar22]

35. Bravo !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6162097



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Laurab]

36. K&R as usual!

Not that your OP will mean anything to the few it needs to reach, but it doesn't hurt to try. I can no longer argue with the delusional, or the paid, or the freepers just here to stir things up, and I believe many fall into those categories.



(Note to self - NEVER piss NanceGreggs off!) :)

[BattyDem]

37. Brilliant ... as usual!

:applause:

[ekwhite]

38. You have hit the nail on the head, again

How do you keep doing that?

By the way - kick and recommend.

[ladym55]

39. Thanks!!

I can't tell you how much I needed to read this tonight. :hi:

I was on the receiving end of some of these VERY lectures tonight. And truthfully, I don't even respond anymore.

[SeattleGirl]

40. Well said, as always, Nance!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

41. My dear Nance!

You go, girl!

:yourock:

[K Gardner]

42. I'm sittin here goin.. "Oh yeah.. uh HUH.. mmmHmmm... DAYUM... " Thanks, Nance !

[Divine Discontent]

44. mmmkay.... the other post of yours you referenced put 3 players on base ---

and with this you just hit a Grand Slam....


Greggs 4

Democracy-Haters (Probable McCain voters, Racists, and generally sour people) 0




New Obama Items Weekly!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[GoldieAZ49]

45. One more: Don't expect any sympathy

If the party is still divided in November

[NanceGreggs]

46. Ain't looking for sympathy ...

... just looking for a Democrat in the WH. Kinda thought that's what we're all looking for.

[Zhade]

47. The OP doesn't support clinton, so she doesn't automatically expect sympathy.

Unlike the professional-victim whiners who support that lying race-baiter clinton.

[cliffordu]

219. Threats, threats, never promises...

I understand Hillaryis44 is going to be up for grabs pretty soon, maybe you could become a webmaster....

[Bette Noir]

48. Brava, Nance.

You state it well.

[BayjanDem]

49. Well

Nance you covered it all. Kick

[smiley_glad_hands]

50. K & R. Nice work. Couldn't have said it better.

On edit: This could be your magnus opus

[mrbluto]

101. "Couldn't have said it better"? "Manus opus"?

Kinda sad.

On both counts.

[beac]

51. K&R-- wish I could rec 10 times more!!

[crickets]

53. K&R

:dem:

[slinkerwink]

54. fucking recommended!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[ExPatLeftist]

116. You forgot number 4

4) Individuals that have simply decided that Clinton is the best candidate for them.


I call out Hillary supporters all the time for this kind of broad-brush crap, and I will call it out on my fellow Obama supporters as well.

There is no mind-control in this, just individuals that have made their choice based on their own criteria. I really hope that we can keep it on that level. I am the first to jump on illogical posts from Clinton supporters, but we all know that there are some good people out there that never say a bad word and simply have their preference - on BOTH sides.

[mrbluto]

148. You have that much more respect from me...

...from calling that crap what it is.

You may not like or agree with me, but I like to give credit where credit is due.

[lucky leftie]

153. Thanks for saying this.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

56. Link?

just kidding.
Great job!

[mrbluto]

57. With or without you - there's the rub. Plus a note on time travel!

Because who likes to work for a group that could care less whether you were a member?

I'm certain it's been the policy of many admirable political groups in the past to lead with that idea.

"With or without you."

That's so inspiring!

I just know that's a group that has my interests at heart!

I just know I'll have a voice in that group!

I just know that's a group that will never suffer an epic fail due to groupthink!

What am I waiting for? A written invitation?

Let's all join the group that doesn't need us!

So, "with or without you",do they really mean it? Of course not. It's only a fraction that enjoy the swagger of saying things like that.

So, are they responsible for "convincing us that Obama is more desirable than McCaine"? No, of course not. But if they want Obama to be the nominee they might consider it something to while-away the time. You, know a hobby, practicing that whole "making a rational case" thing.

I don't know about you, but one thing I look for when asking a supporter "why your candidate?" is the ease, consistancy and appeal of what they go on to say. If it's tough to articulate, is self contradictory, or is repellent, then I take it as a sign of the candidate's stance. If they just go on about "You just ought to." while batting their eyes then I get even more worried because the next step after that is a goose-step, that or some saffron robes and a committed vegetarian life-style. The "F" word worries me as much as the "C" word. ("Fascism" vs. "Cult") Both have an irrational base.

This brings us to an observation about time travel.

From what I understand the nominee is chosen at the convention.

Until the convention there is no nominee. Unless one is a time traveler.

One might reasonably argue that Obama is the presumptive nominee, but not that he is the nominee.

To habitually do so is much like Bush Jr.'s people referred to him as president while the supreme court was still hashing things out.

People have be straining to perform a similar operation for Obama since February. It sets off my radar, and it's only because I dislike McCaine so much that I've been able to avoid an impulse to be contrary. Yes, some strained to perform the same sleight of spin maneuver for Hillary as well up to "Super Tuesday". I didn't like it in either case. The presumption of the Hillary campaign may be one of the factors that helped Obama make it to where his chances are today. If we try that presumption crap in the GE you can bet there will be backlash.

Anyway.

My suggestion to Obama supporters?

Don't let the jerks among you define you.

And don't let certain ego-boost hungry Demagogues get in front of various parts of your parade and lead it astray for their own gratification.

[NanceGreggs]

61. That's what I said.

Barack Obama is the nominee, and the Democrats will win this election with or without those of you who require a special invitation to do the right thing by your party, and your fellow citizens.

I don't give a flying fuck if you find the choice between Obama and McCain to be inspiring, inviting, or sufficiently warm-and-fuzzy to capture that all-important YOU vote come the GE.

The fact of the matter is that the "you'll have to woo me" crowd represents a handful of dead-enders who still (defying all logic) believe they have a bargaining chip to play.

You don't.

[mrbluto]

63. A special invitation to logic.

Look, I've had enough of an administration that doesn't feel it necessary to explain itself - why should I be enthused about another?

It is you that defy logic. Unless you have a time travel machine you've been hiding. The nominee is chosen at the convention. There can be no nominee until chosen. It is cultish and irrational to call Obama anything but the presumptive nominee until then.

By the way, judging from the picture in your sig, and from your attitude, you can keep your "flying fuck". I didn't ask for a "warm-and-fuzzy" feeling from the
Obama supporters I encounter - I ask for reasons.

If you see reasons and policies as "wooing" then, well, I'm just not gonna go there. Suffice to say I don't share your ideas of romance.

To call people who support people other than Obama, or have doubts, "dead-enders" is nothing but shear delusion. The sort of swaggering self-pleasuring fantasy upon which demogogary is built. Even giving Obama the most ridiculously charitable count of votes leaves 40% of the remaining Democratic electorate for whom Obama was not the first choice. If you think 40% of the Democratic party holds a worthless bargaining chip then I wonder what you would ever consider to be a worthwhile bargaining chip. Personally I think that stance is some ploy - you know there's going to be some bargaining come the convention and just can't help yourself from deprecating the value of the coin your guy doesn't hold all of. Trouble is that the way you go about it is pernicious to Obama's chances, and the objectives of the party.

The most disconcerting thing about this is how easily you (and people like you) slip into the sort of tropes and cant that used to be mainly Republican tools, the love-it-or-leave-it, the attempting to equate insisting on civility, respect and dignity as a demand for "warm-and-fuzzies", and this manachian view of your guy vs. the world.

Just the "warm-and-fuzzy" comment is straight out of the neothug play book. I don't know the number of times I've seen someone resisting a discussion of respect or dignity dismiss all such ideas as "unprovable ideas about feelings". I'm sure any woman who fought for woman's rights in the seventies would recognize that for what it is in a heartbeat. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Which brings me to the virtually information-free nature of your post. Not only do you put things in a poor form - you add so little useful information. (* see note) If you went back and swapped-out the name "Obama" for the name of any other name in many of your posts there'd be little to distinguish them other than who you rail against. Movements, or people, that define themselves by what they're against are, practically by definition, reactionary.

You are a reactionary, You promote reactiveness.

You are not a Progressive. (IMHO)

Not even though the candidate you favor might be.

~

p.s. I love it when you swear at me! The sputtering swagger of your response says more than could be said in pages and pages of text. Amongst the things it signifies is an unhealthy transference going on between your ideas of self and that of Obama-the-candidate, the dynamic of which you might want to examine if possible.

---

* (yes, why do I bother to read? - it's like complaining about airline food: "It's so bad - and the portions are so small!" Suffice to say you're like an indicator species - if I keep any eye on you Nance it gives me a clue about the whole ecosystem.)

[chervilant]

67. Do you also wonder

from whence comes such vitriol? How about: why waste so much time and energy writing caustic, divisive, angry rants--and how possibly does this cast a positive light on Mr. Obama? Finally, if there are so many nasty, whiny, petulant Clinton supporters, why in the world would anyone want to waste time and energy engaging such pathetic individuals in further episodes of corrosive, resentful, puerile posts? (You know, I am STILL searching for these verbally riotous Clinton sycophants--where the heck are all of them hiding?!?)

[intaglio]

71. I wish they were hiding

but you can find them easily enough at Hillaryis44

[polmaven]

125. Maybe, if that site was really

comprised of Clinton supporters. It isn't.

You may prefer to think that represents the "typical" Clinton supporter, because you may really, really need to have someone to hate.

The problem with that is this....Most HRC supporters are actually, just like most Obama supporters, Democrats...just as, by the way Hillary is a Democrat.....We support her because we think she is the better candidate, and will make the better president, not because we dislike (hate?)her opponent(s).

[mrbluto]

72. I did wonder and think I figured it out.

It's preparation for a "dolchstosslegende", a "stabbed-in-the-back legend", in case Obama doesn't win, or winds up being ineffective.

Any movement that has discarded the idea that others, and it's own adherents, should be reasoned with needs to have a "dolchstosslegende" handy.

Why? As faithful as anyone might be they eventually realize, even if they can't quite articulate the idea, that accidents don't just happen - they have causes. Since certain types of movement are predicated on the infallibility of their leaders those movements can't simply admit that negligence, ineptitude, or even random chance, has laid the ground for a defeat and they need to supply a reason before the rank and file get to thinking.

They need a "dolchstosslegende".

How else will it persist when the going gets rough?

Admit error? Not likely. The best you can expect is a "limited, modified hang-out" until the sh*t really hits the fan, and the "dolchstosslegende" lets them keep their base for later soft coup attempts. (I mean the Republicans with that last bit - I don't see the Obama people like that. They're naively and inadvertently falling into the groove I think. That's what makes for such a potential tragedy.)

It's a well know phenomenon.

At risk of having Goodwin's law invoked, here's an article on "dolchstosslegende" as it was cultivated in Germany.

Here's how the Republican party does it in the past, the present, and probably the future.

You may be witnessing history in the making here on DU.

And I mean that in the worst possible way.

[RaleighNCDUer]

201. Did you even read the post?

Nance clearly said "we don't need the dead-enders" (not an exact quote).
We, the Democrats, will win without the pseudo-dems who offer only divisiveness and disdain for our candidate. You can join us, as a Democrat, as we expect ALL Democrats to do, or not, and be known for what you are. (That is a generic 'you', not a personal one.)

[The Doctor.]

110. Ask and ye shall receive;

The right wing funds Obama (loony suggestion);
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5800373&mesg_id=5801062

Claiming Obama "shits on cops";
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6154597&mesg_id=6155781

"Fuck the will of the people, and you too...";
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5793971#5820371

Childishness;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4444589

... and there are so many more.

It's not so much that 'Clinton Sycophants' are 'verbally riotous' (though they certainly have been)... it's what they riot about and the false claims they make. I'll agree that Obama people tend to be more verbally harsh, but it's in direct response to the lying, posturing, and manufactured outrage of Clinton and her supporters.


I have nearly a hundred links to my asking Clinton people to back up some claim of 'hatred', 'sexism', or otherwise atrocious behavior by Obama supporters... and only one that got a barely viable response. I followed it up and chastised the supporter, and got an apology from them. That was it.

The problem is not so much that the Clinton supporters are 'riotous', it's that they live in a state of self-induced psuedo-outrage over the rational reactions to their candidate's actual bad behavior. This of course further compounds the frustration of Obama supporters whose criticism of Clinton is legitimate, and brings them to a point where they create posts like the OP.

[chervilant]

165. hmmm....

I keep expecting DUers who repeat the "he/she did it first/worst" meme to stamp their widdle feet while they grouse about why they absolutely have to be verbally corrosive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

204. Being contemptuous is SO much better. nt

[chervilant]

241. Oh, Zing!

Neither is good. But, thank you so much for your response, as it gives me the opportunity to point out the obvious AND to ask you why do you do it? Why post verbal assaults? What does it do for you? How does anyone benefit? Your answers will be greatly appreciated.

[sniffa]

181. 4 Ignoreds for me

Actually, I lied. The 4th was removed from my I-list when she took the dirt nap.

[RaleighNCDUer]

199. It takes a special kind of blindness NOT to see them.

Take another look.

[chervilant]

243. Why?

Seems such a waste of time and energy to wallow in the muck and mire with negative, caustic people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

197. Just give the fuck up.

That is all.

[mrbluto]

222. Just give up - such a democratic spirit you have!

Yup. No "Here's where you're wrong and why.", no discussion, no deliberation.

Either I drink the koolaide, or I'm useless to you?

Such a charming stance.

Just think of the places in history where your attitude would fit right in.

Me? I actually hope the people I'm discussing things with make their best argument. Why? Because how else am I going to learn anything? If I prevail against their best, then my stance is more likely solid, and my position winds up that much more refined for the effort. If I don't prevail then I'm glad to find out in a discussion, rather than in a crisis.

An honest opponent strengthens me either way - so long as I'm sincere.

How about you?

What would you ever have learned if everyone you disagreed with just folded?

Have you always been right?

Also - gotta love how quickly some of the people who lined up behind the candidate of "hope" and "yes we can" want others to just give up because something is hopeless.

I'm sure people said much the same to Obama. What if he had listened?

Or is it only people on your side you want to have hope? Perhaps the rest (people you won't even bother to attempt to persuade) can just live in abject despair as far as you're concerned?

It's like that George Carlin Joke about "stuff"

"My shit is stuff - other people's stuff is shit."

Except for you it seems to be "My wishes are hope - other people's hope is mere wishfulness."

Surprising how many seem to derive satisfaction from extinguishing the hope of another.

[RaleighNCDUer]

245. An honest opponent strengthens me either way - so long as I'm sincere.

But you are not sincere. So you can just fuck off.

Post after post has laid out the reasons, the math, every rationale showing that Hillary has lost - yet you ignore it all and continue to squall.

So you 'believe' that she can win it. Well, there are people that believe the earth is flat. All their belief does nothing to change reality.

[mrbluto]

87. Aw. You remembered your vow.

Probably as soon as you realized refuting the points I made might actually take some work.

Yep. Remember? You vowed to ignore me. But obviously that didn't really happen, did it?

I don't blame you for heading for easier rhetorical pastures though.

I wouldn't want to follow where your logic leads either.

[intaglio]

70. Logic is time travel

Humans have used logic as a method of transcending time for millenia. Where logic fails is when there has been insufficient input. Logic says that, at the convention, the candidate with the largest number of delegates supporting him or her will be the Candidate. Sure, an asteroid could crash into leaving but one superhuman alive to declare herself the Democratic candidate but that is not logical. If your - errrr - "Radar" has detected anything different I think it is incumbent on you to inform people so that they can get out of the way and save the Democratic party.

While I'm on the subject of your "Radar" was it being serviced during the period that another nominee was being touted as inevitable by all her surrogates? If your "Radar" was not set off by that gigantic piece of BS then, maybe, it isn't radar but just emotional commitment or hyperbole.

[mrbluto]

73. I specifically mention that I didn't like the whole biz with Clinton inevitability.

So my radar was working just fine.

What worries me is that, for some people, it isn't sufficient that Obama be the presumptive nominee. No, they must insist that he is the nominee.

From my experience people who think like that are harbingers of disaster for the group they are in.

by the way - I like your observation about "logic is time travel", but if you think that is literally true then you should check yourself into a clinic.

Likewise if you think the odds that something happens between now and august to put the kibosh on an Obama candidacy is lower than that of an asteroid strike. It's not like there aren't forces out there (koff-Rove-koff) happy to arrange it for us. . We really oughtn't be tearing chunks out of each other in our haste to divy spoils just yet.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Brava!

K&R and I completely agree. :D

[Ken Burch]

60. K&R

n/t.

[anitar1]

62. K&R Geat job, Nance. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

64. What she said.

[Raine]

69. Two Thumbs Up!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[livingmadness]

74. Fan-fucking-tastic! n/t

[democrank]

75. Things can get a little messy when

grassrooters start to disconnect the power from establishment machinery.

[JTFrog]

78. K&R!

[MethuenProgressive]

79. Same HillHate, different day...

You should link to the site where you posted that first.

[The Doctor.]

91. Where? I feel so badly for you. It must suck to see 'hatred' everywhere it is not.

Unfortunately, that's your cognitive dysfunction, and you're not paying me to help you... so I can't.

Heck, I'd even help for free, but I can't help someone who refuses to see the problem.

[donheld]

80. K & R

[5X]

83. I will K and R this post after having actually read it ....

instead of k and r'ing just cause my fave drunkard
has come out of its hole to grace us with its presence.
Also, this post contains actual truth instead of kool-aid
induced ramblings.

[PVnRT]

84. K&R

:kick:

[OwnedByFerrets]

85. K & R

[QueenOfCalifornia]

86. Rec #121

Dear Nance -

Thanks for another eloquent post. You put all of my scattered thoughts on this topic together and tired it up with a bow. I have had all of the above said to me and no amount of argument works.

Peace-

Gilligan

[not_too_L8]

92. Can't applaud you enough!!! wish I could rec more than once

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bridgit]

97. Do not "don't" me, you're not the boss of me, no Obama supporter is

Neither thank yourself for me as in, "I washed out your glass and filled it with fresh buttermilk you're welcome"

[BzaDem]

100. How about "don't say anything that I might not like?"

It is perfectly acceptable to comment on Obama's GE chances. While I agree that those who won't support Obama should leave this message board, even someone who is supporting and voting for Obama can (and should) comment on his GE chances. If he loses in an electoral-vote landslide in the fall, we need to understand why, to prevent something like that from happening again. Obviously, loyal Democrats are hoping that he wins. But trying to understand why he loses (if he loses) to help the Democratic party in the future is absolutely being a loyal Democrat (more loyal than those who put their heads in the sand and pretend that this will be an easy election).

[mrbluto]

104. Don't you understand?

Lack of faith is not permitted on Obama Underground!

It's because of people like you that Tinkerbell died!

You just have to believe!

[kitfalbo]

138. clap

Quickly do it now. Clap as hard as you can.

[NanceGreggs]

176. Of course it is aceptable to comment on his chances ...

However, there is a vast difference between saying, "Here's where I think he will run into problems," and saying, "I'm telling you right now he hasn't got a chance of winning, so just accept it."

And I've seen the latter type of comment here too often to ignore. Of course, those who post with that attitude seem blind to the fact that what they are really saying is, "I have determined that he will not win, and I could not possibly be wrong."

What I find really troubling is the posters who so blatantly hope their prediction will be proven right, because being able to say "I told you so" is more important than ensuring a Democratic presidency.

[RaleighNCDUer]

205. The point is, if Democrats get behind him instead of tear him down

he won't lose. With solid Democratic support, and strong independent support, McCain has no chance against him.

The primary is over. There is no rational metric which gives it to Hillary. Therefore, the Hillary supporters need to stop bashing Obama.

The ONE way that Obama can lose this is if Hillary does not get behind him herself, and her supporters, following her lead, do not get behind him either. I do not expect that - she WILL support him, if for no other reason than self-interest. Her political career will be finished if she does not, and causes him to lose the election.

[Shae]

107. Please clarify, Nance,

are you fed up with this bullshit, or what?
Great post!!

:yourock:

[ExPatLeftist]

108. Thank you, Nance. Excellent points all, and ones that have been much on my mind as well. n/t

[rucky]

109. Thanks again, Nance

for thinking clearly and sharing it here!

:yourock:

[Seabiscuit]

111. You've become more and more divisive over the months.

While simultaneously holding yourself out as one seeking to unify.

Exceedingly ugly and hypocritical.

This is why those of us not under Obama's spell talk about how you peeps get drunk on the Kool Aide.

:thumbsdown:

[pipi_k]

114. This was the one that stuck out for me...

Don’t post “Obama will NEVER WIN the GE” – with or without the gratuitous threat to come back and yell I told you so after the loss you are so obviously hoping for – along with your heartfelt assurances that you’re a loyal Democrat who has the party’s best interests at heart.




IMO, anybody who would do that should have his or her voting privileges taken away.

Or the person should just register as a Republican and get it over with. Go play head games with the other side.

If their little egos are so wrapped up in their own candidate over the good of the Party (and the country) in general, then screw 'em and good riddance.

[Lerkfish]

117. AMEN and amen!

kicked and recc'd

[mrbluto]

120. You know it's ironic...

...that in a post you end with "So just keep don’t-ing if you must, while the rest of us keep our eye on the prize." you, Nance actually rack up more "don't"s than the people you rail against. Seems you like to push people around a bit, eh?

You rack up 17 to 1.

And this is even in your own slanted text.

And as usual your advice is insincere - on one hand you offer "handy hints" about being taken seriously, but then tell people to "keep don’t-ing".

Your post is self contradictory and probably emblematic of what is going wrong with DU. (Not the cause mind you, but indicative.)

[Lerkfish]

128. hmmmm... a choice between Nance Greggs and you?

guess which one I choose.

[mrbluto]

139. Because that's all it is, right?

You can only believe one of us.

Not a chance we might both have something useful to say, nor that what either of us might say might be useful grist for your own independent thought and more useful synthesis. Do you chew none of your own food? Why let someone else do your thinking for you?

And just to let you know <sniff> I'm soooooo devastated by your choice. How cruel of you to let me know! Why? Why tell me? When I was so blissfully ignorant!

[Lerkfish]

143. Actually, I've yet to see you have something useful to say in this thread

so, no, not much of a choice.

"blissfully ignorant" may be more accurate than you realize.

[mrbluto]

224. I think your not seeing anything useful...

...says more about you than it does about me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

206. Reading comprehension really is a must. nt

[happygoluckytoyou]

137. and DONT QUOTE.....POLITICO AS AN UNBIASED SOURCE.... DO SOME RESEARCH

[lucky leftie]

142. Here's few "don'ts" for you.

Full disclosure: Though I voted for Clinton in the primary, I'm not fanatic about either of our remaining candidates. I still think Clinton is the stronger candidate but I'll have no trouble accepting Obama as our nominee. But I think Obama supporters like yourself will have more success advocating for him if you observe a few "don'ts" of your own. May I?

1.Don't pretend that this will be an easy coast to victory. It won't be. Obama's recent problems in important states like Pennsylvania and Ohio should be worrisome to any democrat who wants to win this thing. AA's, liberals and academics are all well and good but they won't carry the election. Just ask Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern. Call the voters in states where he lost "racists" if it makes you feel superior, but I sincerely hope the Obama campaign has a plan to reach at least some of those racists before November.

2.Don't gush over Obama. As someone who isn't feeling it, I can tell you that it's off-putting and a little scary. You may see him as "breath-taking" or "the real deal"( real comments I read on kos and mydd.) I see him as a smart, decent man who has run an excellent campaign, period. He is not above reproach. He's gone negative (although having his surrogates do the dirty work has enabled him to avoid the taint of going negative,)has made gaffes and offended people, has embellished some details of his personal life and has some problematic associations. Being positive is fine, rhapsodizing like a fatuous teenager, not so much.

3.Don't tell yourself that you don't need Clinton supporters in November or don't need to sell them on Obama. Obama's primary supporters have made him the nominee; but it is the people who didn't support him in the primary who will determine whether he ever sees the the inside of the Oval Office. Like it or not, his fate is in their hands.

4.Don't dismiss sexist, misogynistic attacks in the media. They may not be the only reason Clinton is losing but they are a factor outside of her control that she should never have had to deal with. No democrat should have to deal with it.

5. Oh, and don't insult people and expect them to take your arguments seriously. Surprising how many people haven't mastered this rather obvious life lesson.

[ladywnch]

147. obviously you haven't read many of Nance's posts before or you'd

better understand her and what she is saying....there is much history here.

[chervilant]

166. And,

Much anger, much vitriol, much sarcasm, much divisiveness, much puerile stomping of her widdle feets.

[ladywnch]

212. speaking of puerile ......................... n/t

[chervilant]

242. But, of course!

Thank you for your response. You afford me the opportunity to ask you WHY? Why do you post verbal abuse? How does verbal abuse benefit you or your candidate? What motivates you to post verbal abuse? What do you get from it?

[ladywnch]

244. I am simply reposting your response......

Much anger, much vitriol, much sarcasm, much divisiveness, much puerile stomping of her widdle feets


we all know you meant this is a mature adult response.....the use of 'widdle' is clear evidence of that. You posted this response and ask me WHY 'I' post verbal abuse?....... amazing.....humorous actually. Thanks for the chuckle.

[pollo poco]

190. Thank you, lucky leftie

I did not vote for Clinton in the primary. But the question that keeps coming up for me is: Why not ignore her?

Barack Obama is ignoring her. He's already on the the GE. He's opened fire against McCain. He has said that he doesn't care if she's running or not.

If I had my choice, we would stop beating a dead horse. Are these attacks just too much fun to give up?

Can our finer writers think of nothing more interesting to write about? This whole bludgeon fest has really jumped the shark. Both sides.

In this post, the OP attacks a group I have never met. I'm not saying that they don't exist. I have just never met anyone who has ever said that if you don't vote for Hillary you are a misogynist. And I have some pretty radical friends! I have also never met a Hillary supporter who plans to vote for McCain.

The Hillary supporters I know are very respectful. They say things like, "But, I'm not sure Obama has the experience." or "I like Hillary." or (and I personally think they should be banished from our planet for this one), "I think she is the better candidate."

And, I must warn you that many people who read these threads may become confused about the meaning of, "Don't dismiss sexist misogynistic attacks in the media" Whenever someone says something like that, many here will hear only, "I think Hillary is losing because of sexism." Some shorten that to "I am a Hillary supporter."

Or if you say that women in general are reacting unfavorably to Ms. Clinton's treatment in the press, blogosphere, etc, and that there may be a backlash against this, some will only hear, "there will be a backlash against Obama" or "I hope he loses."

Some will want links every time you mention the sexism in our society. Like it's your duty to connect them with the feminist masterworks that their whole civil rights and progressive movements are founded on. (And, for those of you who are about to ask me to prove this-read anything by Angela Davis. Then you can follow the trail of feminist writers back through history, and you will find it was feminist writings were used to make the case for black male suffrage. To ask for a link on this is comparable to asking for a link any time anyone here mentions WWII. These books were written. Just because you haven't read any of them doesn't mean they don't exist. Educate yourself, like a proper progressive who wants to understand the history of civil rights.)

So, welcome to DU. I hope you are prepared for a lot of your # 5 because of your # 4.

[NJmaverick]

149. K & R

:kick:

[MessiahRp]

150. Spot on... especially this part:

"Don’t lecture me about being divisive when I fail to coddle those among you who refuse to unite behind our nominee without being courted, romanced, and baby-talked into doing what’s right for our party, and our country."

Every time a Clinton supporter makes an attack on here and an Obama supporter fires back their response is the same: "Good luck getting unity from us with that response" or something similar.

It's childish. I can hit you but if you hit back it's your fault we will not get along.

Ridiculous. Great post as usual Nance.

Rp

[mrbluto]

154. Critique does not equal attack.

But many see it that way it seems.

Check my posts. I point out problems, often more about supporters, rather than Obama himself, and people come after me hammer and tongs.

I think "Good luck getting unity from us with that response" is a perfectly valid response.

If you read it correctly those people are practically asking to be persuaded, but no, that's not good enough for many Obama people.

No, it seems, No - you must have some spontaneous epiphany to satisfy them.

Asking what is good about Obama is sacrilege because it suggests there a possibility of something being not-good.

It's no wonder some people reach the point where they use the term "Cult".

[cbayer]

161. Thank you, thank you, mrbluto

The best thing about this OP and the thread has been your responses.

[nvme]

164. OBAMA is going to heal the sick

by getting universal health care. He will heal the blind by pointing how we fail to see the destructiveness of our partisan politics. He will keep soldiers from dying by pulling them from Iraq. These are just a few of the benefits from joining his cult. hallelujah glory be unto his obamaness.

He will do pretty much the same shit as clinton. Remember a vote for Obama is a vote Against MC Cain.

[MessiahRp]

168. Not the people I am talking about...

"If you read it correctly those people are practically asking to be persuaded"...

That may be true for some Hillary Supporters but the ones I am thinking of (I can't name names or I am calling out DUers and that's a rules violation) have no intention to vote for or support Obama. They are the most vitriolic ones and you'll see them starting a flame war on nearly every thread.

Rp

[papapi]

151. Thank you, and thank YOU fellow DUers for recommending this thread.

[Mongooseflies]

155. H/T & A Big fat K&R

More sensible words have not been stated in quite a while around here....

[shomino]

159. Great post! K&R! Any way we can get this stickied? LOL! -nt

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

160. very nice. thanks for that.

[defendandprotect]

162. Yep . . . see it all the time --- !!

[madinmaryland]

163. I would suggest for your comment to have the most impact,

make it candidate neutral.

For the record, I don't believe I have ever stated here who I voted for in the primaries and who I actually support. And I have no intention on discussing that now. I will support and work hard for whomever that candidate from the democratic party may be in the fall.

Ms. Gregg, I will never condone the personal attacks that supporters of any of the democratic party candidates have made and find your tone awfully condescending. That IS the issue.

We need to rise above the personal attack issues and discuss the REAL issues that are facing this country!

[RaleighNCDUer]

211. The whole point of this, however, is that the problems she is addressing

are NOT candidate neutral. It is not the Obama supporters who threaten to desert the party if they don't get their way. The equating huge verifiable lies with minor misstatements does not come from the Obama camp.

As for condescending, it is important for the trolls to know we see through their bullshit - even if we can't within the rules directly address them.

At the moment, the REAL issue is a few people speaking on behalf of 2/5ths of the Democratic party refusing to get behind the 3/5ths who are behind the winning candidate. That 2/5ths needs to convince those few to shut the hell up and get behind the Democratic nominee.

[Sparkly]

214. "It is not the Obama supporters who threaten to desert the party if they don't get their way."

They did in poll after poll when it looked like Clinton might get the nom. So let's not pretend there isn't some hypocrisy going on here.

I think the 3/5 should also convince some of their own to shut the hell up and follow their candidate's lead toward getting the 2/5 to join with them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

246. I hate to break it to you,

but she NEVER looked like she would get the nom. Not to anybody who could look at the race objectively.

Now, there WAS one point where she was clearly ahead - but then people started to actually VOTE.

[ampad]

167. Get em NANCE

I'm a big fan! Kick

[DerekJ]

172. Kick...

[Janeite]

173. Snap!

[Lugnut]

174. K&R n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

178. did the admins resign?

[ExPatLeftist]

228. Why? What rule does this break? n/t

[Eagle_Eye]

185. Luckily, NanceGreggs doesn't get to tell me what to do

I will post what I want, when I want, in response to who ever I want.

If NanceGreggs doesn't like it, she is free to hit the alert button and turn me in.

[NanceGreggs]

188. Hey, I ain't tellin' anyone what to do ...

... just explaining why some people here are no longer taken seriously because of what they do.

But everyone is free to do it anyway ...

[AZBlue]

186. Nicely done!

K&R
:D

[aikoaiko]

191. ..."with or without you".... wow, just wow.

I was very sympathetic until then.

[ExPatLeftist]

192. Why? Are the rest of us supposed to just give up just because

some Clinton supporters decide to?

We will fight and win this election, and I am sure that most of us hope that it is with the vast majority of Clinton supporters, but regardless, we will fight on so that the Democratic nominee wins the White House.

[aikoaiko]

194. Give up? No. But Obama will likely need nearly every Clinton supporter

in order to win. Apparently, this hasn't sunk in yet.

The Democratic nominee will have my vote, but if his or her supporters think they can win "with or without" the other, then hubris clouds their strategy.

[ExPatLeftist]

196. What exactly are Obama and his supporters supposed to do to gain Clinton supporters?

Stop every single person from saying something mean on the Internet, or do you have something more realistic in mind?



We are all individuals: not under singular control.

[Sparkly]

213. Right, you are all individuals.

And each of you makes choices with your words. How about NOT working to turn people off? NOT being divisive and insulting? NOT gloating, attacking, and behaving like irate underdogs as though you were countering some oppressive force?

How about instead having the confidence to discuss Obama with people who see him differently than you do? If trying to persuade people on DU is too difficult, how will you do it in real life? If nothing else, I suggest ignoring -- whatever it takes to STOP acting like bullying assholes. Just sayin'.

[ExPatLeftist]

225. I do not do anything like what you mention.

So what am I supposed to do about it? Do you expect me or anyone else to control the people that act like that? HOW?


If you put down the broad brush for a second, you will see that people are individuals and cannot control things others do with some sort of hive-mind. You will also see that there are loudmouthed assholes that have supported every candidate in every election ever, anywhere. There are also decent, quiet people that support each and have nothing to do with the assholes. I can guarantee that not every asshole will shut up, and your "logic" in lumping all supporters of a candidate together and judging them is fundamentally flawed - just as judging all people the same that share any one trait (type of shoes, hair color, skin color, religion).

So, you can continue your prejudice and closed-minded broad-brush black-and-white view of the world and judge a candidate based on a small segment of his supporters, or you can try something novel: Judge the candidate on his own merits.


"I'm not voting for you because some people that you never met said something that I thought was mean!!!" This is what you are essentially saying to Obama right now. Sounds incredibly immature, doesn't it?

[Sparkly]

231. Think again.

I am not saying any such thing. I never doubted for a second I'd vote for Obama as the nominee.

[ExPatLeftist]

238. OK, then what exactly is your point?

"Some other people may not vote for the nominee unless we are ALL really nice to them, no matter what they say or do!"

Personally, people that base their vote not on the candidate him/herself but on whatever the worst his/her supporters have to say are illogical and immature fools, and there will be no reasoning with them. Hopefully they will come around, but there sure as shit ain't a thing I can do about it. Case in point: Some Clinton supporters complained when Obama enthusiastically complimented Senator Clinton a couple of weeks ago. There is no pleasing some people, and in the end they make up their own mind. For my part, I do the best that I can, and everyone else can worry about their own actions. If I see Obama supporters using fallacy or outright attacks, I call them on it. But the notion of holding one's own vote as a bargaining chip is, IMO incredibly childish and patently undemocratic.

[aikoaiko]

220. What to do you ask.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would ask NanceG to STFU and stop being so patronizing because Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee and we need Clinton supporters on our side. Almost every criticism she leveled at Clinton supporters could be reexpressed as a similar criticism of Obama supporters.

Why, you may ask, should Obama supporters be so magnanimous? Maybe because its in their character to be gracious, but if not, then for no other reason than you need Clinton voters to win the White House. You say you want to fight to get the white house, but the fight is mostly for the middle of the road voters --- those initially drawn to Clinton and not Obama.

If you can't win Clinton voters, how are you going to win moderate Republicans -- those other people you need to win?

Maybe Obama can overcome his "biggest supporters".

[ExPatLeftist]

226. The Obama CAMPAIGN is working on gaining those voters

The random people posting on the Internet speak only for themselves. Neither I nor the Obama campaign "control" them, and they are free to say what they want. If you choose to base your vote on the words of a few supporters rather than the merits of the candidate himself, then I would say that you need to seriously rethink your priorities and criteria. There will be people whose words you dislike that represent EVERY candidate, so might it not be better to ignore it and judge the candidates themselves??


You say, "If I were an Obama supporter..." that you would basically become a moral cop going around these boards and taking all Obama supporters to task that cross some (your personal) line. I look forward to reading your collection of smackdowns on Clinton trash-talkers that cross MY line. Got links?

You address Obama supporters as if they are a conscious group that can change course as a single unit. How naive. Are we supposed to shut EVERYONE up that says something that you do not like?

Again, I ask, what is the criteria? This is all very nebulous stuff you say - is your demand (for which some Clinton supporters are holding their own votes ransom) that ALL "offensive" posts stop? What is the concrete criteria, and how can it be implemented in the real world? I really see no criteria here lately except "Everyone better be really nice to me or I will vote for the fascist!!" How realistic is that?

[aikoaiko]

235. Here's the thing.

First, I am not a Clinton supporter -- at least don't support her anymore than Obama. I don't consider myself in that group so you won't find any posts chastising Clinton supporters. Besides, she doesn't need Obama supporters in the General Election because she won't be the nominee. I'm jumping into this thread because when a long term DUers lie NG makes posts like that, it bewilders me. I need the Democratic candidate to win, but its more difficult if Obama supporters are alienating Clinton supporters.

You're resistance to talking to your own group of Obama supporters is strong.

You ask for criteria for deciding when a poster should be chided for alienating Clinton supporters. None is needed if you have any sense of empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. I did and that's why I posted.

Do you see all replies saying "thank you" or "great post" in this thread. Your claim that it is impossible to give feedback to each other is ridiculous since it is done often --- its just that the feedback is often mutual adoration.

Well. I'm done giving you and NG advice as Obama supporters and Democrats. Perhaps if Obama or his campaign tell you this then you'll believe it.

[ExPatLeftist]

237. Uh, thanks for the "advice", your graciousness....

Sorry if you think that is snarky, but I see an inherent arrogance in those that claim to "give advice" rather than simply stating their opinion.

And I do not need anyone to "tell me this" so that I "believe it" - you are making a shitload of assumptions about me that are not true. I do not attack people here, and am not this imaginary "typical Obama supporter" that you are seeking to chastise.

You say, "You're resistance to talking to your own group of Obama supporters is strong.(sic)" What leads you to that conclusion? I have equal disdain, and am vocal about it, toward all that post broad-brush statements and premises based on logical fallacy. Check my post history if you do not believe me.

Regardless of who YOU support, you need to, IMO, lose the broad brush and realize we are all individuals - and if an individual says something you don't like, then you take it up with them rather than anyone who happens to share a trait with them.

[aikoaiko]

240. I did take it up with that person. You asked ME questions and I replied to YOU.

So when I give advice, I am inherently arrogant, but when the OP does, well, you defend her.

I'm out of this thread.

[RaleighNCDUer]

247. There's a quote I remember - though I've forgotten who said it -

along the lines of "a great general is magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat".

When the Hillfans start being gracious, I'll start being magnanimous. If they continue to bray and bluster, fuck em.

[Liberal Veteran]

198. Polite and perfect smackdown!

:yourock:

[Catamount]

202. Thank you dear...for saying it the way it is--always!

K&R

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

203. Thank you one more time, Nance

You make it so clear. Everything you said needs to be said.

[progetto]

216. sums it up about right. n/t

[CreekDog]

230. OMG, K&R!

have you considered running for president of DU? :applause:

[bigtree]

234. don't do anything I might disagree with

or anything I might come up with an argument against.

and for damn sakes, don't change your mind. Let me make your argument for you beforehand just to put you in your place . . . Hillary Clinton supporter.