What are we trying to do to each other?

[AbbyR]

I am not a frequent poster, but I generally read DU daily. Can someone please explain to me why we have to keep on bashing every person who might possibly run for president as a Democrat? There is something basically sick about it - it doesn't matter who you like (or don't), there are going to be huge fights and lengthy threads denouncing the candidate of your choice.

I would really love to see some sensible threads, like "I like Suzie Q. Candidate because of her stand on the following issues." Then the poster could go on to state those issues, others could add more. Those who don't like Suzie, rather than bashing her as unelectable or stupid or Republican Lite, could go and be specific about dislikes. Suzie voted in favor of the Iraq War, she doesn't support environmental legislation, etc.

I want to learn about candidates, and I look to DU to help me do that. If I want to see any candidate bashed, I can head over to Freeperville.

Can we possibly manage to educate readers about what we like and don't like about candidates, using links and quotes, without the name calling? It would be so refreshing.

[madokie]

1. I agree with you

I want to learn not argue what I already know

[Monkeyman]

4. Agree

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I agree

I think each of the potential candidates and declared candidates have strengths and weaknesses. Personally, right now I want to know about all the strengths of a particular person--and it is often difficult to find that out amidst bashing. There was a thread today about a candidate that I am currently not supporting, but who, I would feel, would make a good President. I read carefully the pros about this candidate, which got me thinking about more pros this person has. It made me feel better, thinking that if my person wasn't nominated but this one was, he would be a candidate I could support.

[OneBlueSky]

3. I say let 'em all run . . . the more the merrier . . .

the more positions and outlooks we have to consider, the better . . . like everyone else I have my preferences, but I also want to see what everyone else has to say . . .

[shrike]

5. I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for the Dems in 2008

Because of this tendency we have to eat our own.

I've seen this at the local level, party activists at each other's throats because of something "your guy" or "my guy" said.

"Candidate Blank (fill in a name) has lost my support because he/she
said blank." (fill it in with whatever you want.)

I realize people are very passionate about certain ideals, but to me, this is akin to gun nuts I know who vote for the candidate who supports gun rights, never mind what else he/she stands for. Sometimes they withdraw support because he/she isn't pro-gun enough to suit them. The whole world could go to hell in a handbasket, "so long as they don't take my guns away."

I'll try to curb this pessimism, though; it is early, yet.

[Catchawave]

6. I think we need to juice up the DU rules a bit ?

Here's what they state (emphasis mine):

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

The first paragraph is simple, yet the second specifies General Election, not considering to run/declared candidates. I'd like to see that changed to PERSONAL ATTACKS TOWARDS ANY DEMOCRAT, period. In my perfect DU world, we'd just get all pissy over important issues and beating Republicans, not each other.

Maybe a troll ratings system might work ?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Then there's the problem of the BS the candidates put out to cut through.

While I may agree with your notion that just bashing candidates is a bit fruitless, the candidates themselves bring much of it upon themselves with PC double speak and mushy platitudes. i.e. "I'm for peace but we must support the effort to achieve our goals in Iraq and I will vote for the appropriation of more funding and more troops."

[Clark2008]

8. Well, I've seen lots of DUers say exactly why they don't support

someone - with links.

So, I'm not sure what you mean.

[quinnox]

9. Edwards

He has gotten attacked and smeared in many threads, it is really disappointing. And these attacks were NOT substansive issues related but stupid juvenile stuff like he has too much money or too slick.

These posters that post flamebait attacks should be banned, on the spot.

That would create a much improved atmosphere here in this coming primary season.

[IndyOp]

17. A sugggestion - if someone says "he is too slick" or "she is a *itch" -

ask what that candidate could do that would change the posters mind. I think this question gets people to move beyond what may have been a bad first impression or beyond blaming people for what they did in the past and cannot change now.

Just a thought - I've been disappointed too...

[itsmesgd]

10. I think that if we can criticise them before the freepers get them it's a good thing

plus, lots of the criticism is based on reason and not skin color or middle name. I think that it is best if we vet our own before they are crucified on the national news.

Oh yes,
Edwards 08- my pick (even though he is a lawyer)

[omega minimo]

11. You mean informative discussion, respectful exchanges that may even be productive??

:hi: :think:

[femrap]

12. Some of these inconsiderate posters may have

an agenda of their own...some could be paid to rattle the Dems' blogs....and some just may have emotional problems and simply are unable to discuss rationally. Just remember that the rude ones are a minority...a very small minority. And maybe that is what bothers them the most.

[Vektor]

13. That would be a dream come true.

I'd love to see intelligent discourse without the mudslinging, too. And you can find that here, but yes, it's mixed in with a lot of vitriol. I see no problem with any Dem that wants to run doing just that. That's what Democracy is all about. The voters will sort it out in the end.

Thanks for a rational plea for civility.

[Bobbie Jo]

14. I've asked the same question.....

I suppose this is part of the process, but I sincerely hope that once a nominee emerges, DU will close ranks and focus on defeating the REAL enemy.

....and IMO, it "ain't" Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Kerry, etc......

[IndyOp]

15. My suggestion: Start with one positive comment about any candidate

up for discussion and then say why you do or don't support them at this time.

Also, if you have problems with them, say what they could do to improve their record. I am willing, at this point, to consider anyone - but some will have to change their tunes considerably.

We have a long, long time between now and November 2008. I want all potential candidates to listen to us and respond - to do good between now and the Dem primaries. I am not slamming the door shut on anyone.

[benEzra]

19. Well put. (n/t)

[DeepModem Mom]

16. K&R

[NoSheep]

18. Agreed!

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Sadly, that's what primary season is like here.

People tend to develop intense attachments to particular candidates, and try to bash any candidate that is seen as a potential competitor to their own. I think it's just a part of human nature.

I still have scars from the last primary season here, and am dreading what this place will look like when things *really* heat up. :scared:

[LWolf]

21. What I want, and what I don't:

I don't want a beltway, mainstream, corporate-controlled, DLC candidate. I don't give a rat's ass how personable they are, what a heart-warming story their life has been, or how nobly they present themselves, or what slight little concessions they've made to voters for the privilege of representing them. I don't want someone who makes concessions on the issues of peace, universal health care, education, labor, or the environment. I don't want someone who stands for something so undefined that they shift direction eagerly with every breeze, their first priority to hold on to their power rather than use it to serve.

I do want a candidate that is not controlled by any corporation, the dlc, or any other party or pac power structure, or by visions of powerful sugar plums dancing in their heads. I want someone who puts issues first, and stands for common people. I want someone who will not work to keep the elite in power, and the underclass beneath them. I want someone who doesn't lie, someone who champions civil liberties and peace, and the health of the nation and planet. I don't want someone with concrete plans to move forward, to do what is right for people and the planet, and who won't be silenced by the powers that be.

I will vote for someone that I want. I will not vote for someone that I don't want, regardless of campaign rhetoric, party manipulation or bullying, or less than truthful "spin." I will not pretend that any candidate is a combination of hero, rock star, savior, and prophet. If people push candidates as if they are those things, I will probably offer a rebuttal. :shrug:

[illinoisprogressive]

22. I have seen a candidates supporters go totally repug

in thier bashing. I don't know why they do that. There are some supporters who get irriatating with thier teeny bopper excitment over a certain candidate. I understand they are excited but, it gets a bit much because they are the ones most likely to bash any other candidate. I think they feel threatened by any other candidate as someone who would keep thier favorite from winning.

[Neshanic]

23. NIce. I like the way you put that. Maybe it will sink in now.

[LuckyLib]

25. This deserves its own thread! And more visibility!

[Hekate]

24. KnR. What I want is a field of Dems so strong I'll have a hard time choosing my favorite

I find several of OUR Dems attractive at the moment, John Edwards and Barack Obama among them.

My mantra has always been: The Repubs will do a lot of dirt-digging and mud-slinging; why should Dems do it for them?

Let's know everything we can about our men and women, encourage them to not flinch when the going gets tough, to fight back strongly, and most of all let them know we've got their backs all the way.

And if Ralph Nader ever dares again to say there's no difference between the parties or their candidates, I'm going to heave a rotten egg at him. Imagine President Al Gore in the WH for the past 6 years.

Hekate

[Usrename]

26. I don't think it is about parties anymore.

To quote another poster from another board:

"70% of the people in this country support return of the government back to the people, rebuilding and maintenance of the public infrastructure for the benefit of all, rights and protections for workers, land use planning and protection of the natural world, equal opportunity and protection under the law for all citizens, and have no interest in harassing their neighbors because of their race, gender, religion, gender preference or for any other reason." – mberst


This is a very non-partisan view, and I think it is correct, even in the red states. It is an idea that can be supported by many diverse belief systems and ideologies.

The nation is split over the issue of Empire, and many elected Democrats support Empire and the whole Bush Doctrine. This is just a simple fact of life. It has little to do with personalities or most of the other issues you mention.

The huge question is whether or not we will ever be asked to choose sides. Choosing sides will be the easy part. Establishing an opposition side so that we may have a choice is the difficult part that everyone is squabbling over.