Reply #32: My perception is that there are 'a number' of

[Mairead]

nominal Dean supporters (I sometimes have to wonder whether they're really plants, though whose they'd be I can't imagine) whom I can only characterise as immature, hostile, and vocal.

As many know, I recently posted an article from Vermont PIRG about Dean and campaign finance. They were critical of him for syphoning off money from the public-financing fund. I didn't see the whole thing at first, so I asked how that had all worked out. I was personally attacked--called a 'repug'--and vilified for posting the article and asking the question. And one of the posters claimed that VPIRG 'hates' Dean. Why is that?

Not long ago, someone (I can't now remember who) started a thread asking from each supporter of a candidate 3 criticisms of that candidate. I noticed that a lot of Dean's supporters posted praise, but few posted criticisms. Why is that?

When support for a candidate centers on non-specific opinions that cannot be tested before the fact ('electable') or are false ('only one to stand up to Bush'), no criticism is forthcoming from inside the camp, and any criticism from outside is denounced loudly by the claque as 'bashing' --there's something wrong with the situation.

Every voter should be an adult, and should be seeking to discover which candidate to support, not seeking for reasons to support the decision they've already taken. We should all be looking for the candidate with the greatest merit, not the one with the biggest army or the fewest scruples or the nicest smile or the best hair or some other factor that has no bearing on whether s/he is prepared to turn the damn'd country AROUND.

I think Nicholas is doing a needed job that benefits us. I support him in it. I would be overjoyed if he had the energy to research all the candidates similarly. We need that kind of information, and we should acknowledge that.