Reply #283: It is rather cliche...

[Riktor]

... to assert that anyone who corrects an incorrect statement is a "pompous know-it-all". That's the same bullshit tactic Kansans use to assault those fancy East Coast liberal scientists who dare suggest man and ape share a common ancestor. It is fallacious to attack the personality of your opponent rather than the factuality of his argument, no matter how big a prick he is.

So, to get back to your point, you are concerned with the "health and welfare of the Party"?

Why now?

The DNC, like the RNC, is an old-boy network filled to the brim with people who owe people favors. It has been like this for as long as the party has been around, and it is unlikely to change. The fact Hillary is using her clout within the DNC to hammer Obama doesn't in any way imply there's a contingent of "corrupt" Democrats, to which Hillary would inexorably belong, and a contingent of "genuine" Democrats, which would count golden-child Obama amongst their numbers. All this story implies is that Hillary has been playing the game longer, has more connections within the DNC, and is using them just as any other presidential candidate would. In a way, this move is no different than Obama pulling on the clout of Oprah to help get his name out.

I'll continue to support the Democrats because they most represent my political sympathies. However, as the heart and soul of the party, it is up to us to look at them objectively, and criticize the ever-loving hell out of them when they step out of line.