Some Candidates Are More Equal Than Others.

[cali]

Call Clinton Hiltery? Hey, no problem! Call her a witch, a bitch, a bush clone? Fair as fair can be. Slam her on her marriage or her husband's philandering? Why not? Post her picture next to one of bush, with the caption "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? *Shrug* There's more. You know them.

Criticize Edwards or Kucinich, the DU favorites, even substantively, and to echo a turn of phrase that was much in vogue among some a few weeks back; you become the target of "ritual shaming"- or to put it more simply, righteous indignation rings metaphorically throughout DU.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

DISCLAIMERS:

I do not support Clinton or any other candidate who voted for the IWR- not in the primaries. I will crawl through broken glass to vote for the dem nominee in November of '08.

I am not justifying my use of an offensive phrase in regards to some of Edwards' supporters.

Yes, I realize that a certain amount of hypocrisy should be glanced over, but it's reached such a level, that I don't see why it shouldn't be called for what it is.

[cali]

1. self-serving

kick for hypocrisy.

[Beaverhausen]

2. Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today

Can you say anything postive?

[Kucinich4America]

3. The pictures of Bill with the Bushes and Hillary with Murdoch aren't photoshopped.

They're real, and they speak volumes. As does her list of corporate funders.

Those are valid issues, and they are among the many reasons that I cannot support such a candidate.

If pictures of Dennis Kucinich socializing with Rupert Murdoch existed, I'd expect people to call attention to them. Thankfully, there are no such pictures, because Dennis isn't for sale. And there's the difference, and it's a huge difference, given the current corporatist mentality, and how it has all but completely destroyed this country.

I haven't followed your particular problems with Edwards, so I won't comment on that. But I'll take your word that you won't support a warmonger.

[cali]

6. how good of you to take my word!

I'm not talking about real phots. I'm talking about pictures of Clinton juxtaposed side by side with pictures of bush with the caption I referenced in my OP.

Is there anything you think is too low, or do you believe that common decency shouldn't be extended to Clinton? How about Clinton photoshopped as Hitler, complete with mustache? That was posted here. How about bashing her for not leaving her husband? That too has been posted.

I like Dennis, but I consider his friendship with a racist repuke, a bit discomforting.

[Kucinich4America]

8. I wouldn't characterize either Clinton as Hitler

I only put the Bush Crime Family in that category, and because they were literally connected to Hitler.

As far as Hillary's marriage, Monica, Hillary's alleged relationship with her assistant.... none of that shit makes a damn bit of difference to me. It's her repuke-lite corporatism that sickens me, not her private life.

And I'm not wasting anymore time on that distortion from the Cleveland Fish Wrapper.

[Cameron27]

4. The hypocrisy's so deep lately

you could drown in it. I caught the "meet the new boss" pic. Charming. As if we couldn't post a similar smear about his awesomely terrific candidate.

[asdjrocky]

5. I do have problems with the Clinton's,

And it started with his administration. I try not to call names, I try not to attack without substance.

As far as the pic goes, they both work with or for the same people. I believe there is little difference between the two. And the more MSM pushes Hillary, the stronger my opinion grows.

[cali]

7. hmm.

You are influenced by the MSM. And if you don't know why you are, ponder it. And just so you know, the MSM's coverage of Obama is significantly more favorable than of Clinton. I posted a diary from kos complete with the statistics, this morning.

Some of us simply do not tune in to the MSM at all. I know all I need to know about it from the internet. Try cutting it out of your life. Who knows, it may make a difference.

[asdjrocky]

9. Honey Bee?

Have you been watching me again? How do you know what I watch on TV, or what newspapers I read?

I just don't know HOW you manage to do it.

See ya, doll.

[cali]

11. ahh, pookie

imitation is the best form of flattery, or so they say, kumquat.

I hate to break this to you, sweetcheeks, but you referenced the MSM influencing you in your post.

[asdjrocky]

12. Yes tootsie,

I did. And if you read anything on line, or listen to any left wing radio, or watch Democracy Now, for example, you know the Clinton's, and Rudy, of course, are being pushed by MSM.

Nice try twinkle-toes, but no cigar.

(But honestly, I'm loving this, I'll be up to 1000 posts by the end of the hour. And mostly, it will be because of you!)

What else ya got, sweetcheeks?

[asdjrocky]

32. Why do you always take off just when it's getting fun?

[dave29]

37. she is looking up the correct spelling of snookems

and pondering whether or not hurling insults at DU members is an example of the hypocrisy she describes... in and of itself.

Disclaimer

1) I crawled through glass just to write this post

[asdjrocky]

39. dude, seriously,

That is funny stuff. Thanks for making me laugh.

[cali]

41. oh dear

munchkinpop. I had things to do. you missed me that much eh, flopsy?

I'm just a wee bit bored with this, pootie. And you just keep mimicking me, my little parrot. If you kept up better, dolly, it might be more fun.

For now it's lost its lustre.

[asdjrocky]

42. So I'm to assume you're really going away this time?

Promises promises.

Your lips say "no no" but your typing says "yes yes."

[EV_Ares]

10. You say:

"Criticize Edwards or Kucinich, the DU favorites, even substantively, and to echo a turn of phrase that was much in vogue among some a few weeks back; you become the target of "ritual shaming"- or to put it more simply, righteous indignation rings metaphorically throughout DU."

That may be true somewhere but for me I can speak as to what I have been called and other things just for posting an article which was factual but unfavorable of Hillary. All it was was a factual article that Hillary supporters did not like and it did not happen just once. So as to your comment about Edwards or Kucinich supporters, you need to add the Hillary supporters as well and they are rather extreme in their manners at times.

I will take your word for it you don't support Clinton but I am sure others as myself find it difficult as the only posts I have seen you make are usually slams/attacks/criticisms, whatever on Edwards and Obama and the only posts for Hillary are usually complaining about what has been or is being said about her or in any respect a favorable article towards her. Nothing wrong with that but it may be why you have to defend yourself so much you are not a Hillary supporter.

[cali]

13. Factual criticism is different than what I'm referencing in my OP

and you don't have to take my word for anything, you can do a search and find posts of mine critical of Clinton. Lots of them too. You're just wrong about my posting only in defense of her. And I rarely have posted anything positive about her. I do get attacked occasionally by a Clinton supporter for criticizing her substantively, and I react to that.

Why do I defend her so much? Partly because I see some of it as sexism, but even more of it as hate talking. No other candidate gets treated in such a way. It offends me to see her called bitch, corporate whore, nazi, fascist, etc. And when I see that crap about other poster- and it does happen from time to time- I call that for what it is too.

I've never seen you write anything defamatory about Clinton that I can recall, so I'm clearly not referring to you in the OP.

[sufrommich]

14. It's gone beyond merely attacking

Clinton and moved into attacking any Democrat that supports Clinton. I've seen some of our most loyal Dems shot down for supporting her. I'm always amazed that so many cannot see how personal their hatred has become for her.I love to see a comparison done on personal attacks during the last campaign,I find it hard to believe it ever went this far beyond attacks on policy as it has with her.

[Beaverhausen]

15. Every supporter of every candidate has been attacked. It isn't just the Hillary supporters

[sufrommich]

16. I'm sorry but the scale of attacks

does not even compare.A quick scan of DU makes that obvious. To point out that other candidates are attacked here does not speak to the over the top vitriol commonly thrown around when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

[Beaverhausen]

17. I disagree. Every candidate and his/her supporters get attacked

Well, mostly Obama, Edwards and Hillary. Occasionally the "Biden is a BofA whore" thread pops up and, then there was the whole DK- Ron Paul thing.

I think we are each more sensitive to the attacks on the candidate we support.

[cali]

18. that's just not accurate

if you can't see that there's disparity both quantitatively and qualitatively, you're blinded by partisanship.

[Beaverhausen]

20. How many threads did you start today alone attacking Edwards?

They are ALL attacked. Get over it.

[sufrommich]

19. When is the last time you saw a

demeaning photo shopped pic of any other candidate? There is a whole thread in GD right now about a "rumor" that Bill Clinton is being unfaithful to her.Go have a look at the gleeful shit being posted there. Have you seen thread after thread devoted to Kucinich past marital problems? Do you see anyone questioning any other candidates personal life as reason enough not to vote for them?How about "body language"? Odor? Looks? Sexuality?

[Beaverhausen]

21. I have seen posts like that about all the candidates

I didn't even bother to open the Clinton-affairs thread. I don't need to see it. Yes, it sucks. So does the nasty cartoon about Edwards supporters in another thread I just read.

[cali]

22. yiikes.

you really can't see this objectively. Carry on.

[Beaverhausen]

23. And by the way, supporters of every candidate better get used to it

I predict a general election nastier than any we have ever experienced. I'm not looking forward to it quite frankly.

[sufrommich]

25. All the more reason why Dems should not

be leading the charge.

[Beaverhausen]

28. I agree

I think I have a good record of not posting negative things about other candidates. We don't need to do the republicans work for them.

I do confess that I posted in the Hillary- Colin Powell thread yesterday but what I said was "please tell me she didn't say that."

[sufrommich]

34. I honestly don't mind the majority of posters here

who just don't agree with her politically,it's our right to choose whom we are the most comfortable with.What I don't understand is the need to personalize it. If you disagree with Clinton's choice of including Powell in policy issues,that's a perfectly legitimate reason to bitch. I'm glad you're staying with the issues.

[sufrommich]

24. Seriously,If you can't see the disparity between the

personal slams against Clinton as opposed to all the others,you're not looking. It's not even close. And as I said,now even well known Dems who have always been nothing but loyal and hard working for our party, get the same demeaning treatment for supporting her.

[Beaverhausen]

26. Yeah, well I'm a good loyal dem and have been treated the same way

We have to agree to disagree about this.


May the best candidate win!

[sufrommich]

27. Agreed.nt

[Armstead]

29. Some insults more equal than others, IMO

Characterizations like Hitlery or witch or bitch or other personal disparagements should be considered off limits, IMO.

However, frankly, phrases that address her in regard to issues are okay within the proper context. Personally, I think "meet the new boss....etc" is entirely appropriate on some levels, if one considered her to be a servant of the same "boss" (i.e. the corporate elite) that has been driving down this country since 1980.

Her marriage is also fair game, because she has made it a centerpiece of subtext to justify her election.

On the otehr hand, I believe Dennis Kucinich is totally right on the issues, and I admire his courage and consistency enormously. And I find the notion that his positions are "far left whacko" to be very offensive.

However, I think one of the funniest posts I've seen on DU referred to him as representing "All the people who were chosen last in volleyball." A cheap shot, but really funny and not offensive to me.

I guess we all have our own personal hot buttons, and it all boils down to personal taste and personal boundaries, I suppose.

[asdjrocky]

31. Very good point.

I must say that I agree 100%.

[rucky]

30. This would be a prudent time to move on to another topic. n/t

[dave29]

33. You are right, Cali. Life is unfair for Hillary

I hope she manages to survive all these mean, nasty attacks from those big bad DU posters

[sufrommich]

35. I doubt that Clinton sweats the "mean,nasty attacks"

from DUers,I doubt the OPs intention was to "protect" Clinton from anybody.It sounded more like a statement on the level of discourse here in regards to Clinton.Hillary can take care of herself.

[dave29]

36. I doubt it too, she has stated, repeatedly, she does not support Clinton

and I take her at her word.

In regards to DU -- who said politics was fair? This is a progressive site, and whatever flack Hillary gets here, nasty or not, is a reflection of the views of it's membership. Take it or leave it.

Whining about it doesn't win you anything.

[cali]

38. lol

it's about DU, way more than it's about Clinton. It's about hypocrisy. It's about who we are as a community. Too complicated for you? Guess so.

[dave29]

40. should I go ____ myself again now

I didn't mean to interrupt your discussion of who we are as a community

[cali]

43. just one question

how was it, dude?

[dave29]

44. shhh -- I'm not done

[MasonJar]

45. Thanks, Cali, for standing up for fairness. I agree with you...let the majority

choose the nominee and whoever it is I will work for the candidate with vigor and enthusiasm. No more pukes appointing any judges to the federal court; no more torture; no more Haliburton; no more lying, non-engaged puppets who fart in public at the WH. The list is too long to further enumerate; we all know its indefensible details anyway.