Open question to fellow DU'ers regarding "candidate-bashing"

[Bonobo]

Question:
I would sincerely like to understand how it is that there is so much vitriol flung around here?
For those of you participate in and even post these threads, how do you justify your behavior at at time in history like this? In the event that your participation leads to the re-election of a truly evil and dangerous man, how will you rationalize that?

My related feelings on the subject:
I do not say that criticism is unimportant. An open debate is, of course, a crucial part of democracy. But it is the truly bitter and vitriolic criticism that I object to. You basheres must look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are being a mature and sensible adult. To some, participation in a message board such as DU is used as well, lats say...a form of entertainment. Some may even say a form of mental masturbation to build one's avatar to larger than ife proportions and throw one's opinion out there into the ether. But you are part of history here and as democrats, you have the greater burden and responsibility to act in a thoughtful and rightheaded way.

I beg that the verbal violence stop here. It is nothing other than a reflection of the physical violence in our society. I will accept all flame that comes my way for this (rare) post. This is a leap for me to raise my own voice like this and open myself to the type of attacks I witness here -but go if you will.

Meanwhile, I beg restraint and mature exercise of judgement. End of preach session.

[theivoryqueen]

1. I am relatively new to DU, but rarely see venomous posts

[a_random_joel]

2. I do NOT condone bashing, but...

You better believe the Thugs will be gearing up to do just that. So if the eventual nominee has to endure some mudslinging from fellow Dems to help prepare, or to vet any skeletons that the Thugs will likely bring up anyway, I say fine. That is the nature of the primary process.

That said, I wish we could all just get along, and focus energy, resources, and cash where it really belongs. On *.

The bashing on DU does tend to get out of hand at times.

[chaska]

3. Well, because you only have 170 posts, your opinion doesn't count.

Or so some would have it.

I wish we could compete on a more rational, less emotional basis. Why is it so hard for people to acknowlege that all the candidates are good in there own way. Just because I support Clark above the others doesn't mean I have to hate Dean. But when a Dean supporter slams my candidate, what is the natural reaction? It takes a lot to restrain oneself in such instances.

I'd like things to be more positive, but I think that contention is simply human nature, and thus unavoidable.

Oh well.

[Bonobo]

5. I agree that it is human nature. I do, but...

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

-Abraham Lincoln

[seventhson]

4. I understand your concerns, BUT...

I am one of those who feel it is critical to weed the proBush dems out of the race by exposing them.

Lieberman is prowar and suppoorts PNAC.

Kerry has what I believe are dangerous ties to the Bushes through his secret order at Yale. I thgink he is 100% fake.

Clark, too, has ties to the BFEE and Kissinger via the Stephens group who, in the same year as they gave Bush $100,000 also hired Clark. Stephens also arranged Saudi financing for Bush (shrub) in the 1980's in his oil business.

I think it is critical that we NEITHER support such candidates in the primaries NOR allow them anywhere near the Vice Presidency (as it would mean a likely Wellstoning of Dean). Seriously.

I try to remind DU of these elements and educate new DUers every chance I get because generally the US population is naive and misinformed on these kind of political alliances and how dangerous they are.

The attacks on Dean, in my opinion, are mostly IMHO from folks who WANT Bush reelected.

You see few such attacks on the other candidates because they are not serious threats to Bush. Edwards is still too low on the radar to get such attacks (although there ARE some valid critiques on Edwards which appear to NOT be BFEE related) - but he will get them from SOME DUers if he poses a serious challenge to Kerry or Clark.

I wish the attacks on Dean would stop because he will be our candidate when all is said and done. But I do not expect them to and can't because this is a political war. We just have to KEEP educating the misled folks and trying to bolster the guy we love best.

As much as I prefer the policies of Kucinich, I have to think the most viable and best ticket to win is Dean/Edwards.

[BootinUp]

7. Oh Dear!

Point + Miss

Please give some thought to what you are saying. It is really preposterous.

[salin]

8. great example

just in case anyone wanted to understand about the blind divisiveness that some posters take that set off fireworks of unsubstantiated vitriol that only hurts our ability to come together in the end... to defeat bush.

[Bonobo]

10. And I personally don't agree...but that's irrelevant right now.

Whoever wins, will win: That's my prediction.

And do you really care (imagine that said syllable by syllable through clenched teeth) who is the nominee when faced with the gruesome prospects of what will happen should we all fail to unite like in the last election?

I am guilt, yes, guilty!!! I admit it!!! I voted for Nader!!! I am in Massachusetts and I knew it wouldn't make a difference, so I did it! There, I feel better now.. But I would not do it again and I will not do it again, until (if) the political landscape in this cuntry ever swings far enough to reason so that I will once again be afforded that luury.

Yes, luxury is the right word. We do not have the luxury (again, imagine clenched teeth, etc) to engage in this kind of stuff. We must sacrifice more than just our time and hearts and souls. We may have to sacrfice the luxury of back-biting. I think its worth it in this case. How about you?

[UTUSN]

6. Keep Going, You're Doing Great

Our Dem-on-Dem violence could be fixed:

1) A Dem shalt not savage another Dem.

2) Laundry lists of issues aimed at demolishing other Dems are just self-defeating. Issues don't matter in fighting Shrub. Shrub don't care 'bout "issues".

3) Those posting their own pro-threads and flooding the threads of other candidates with anti-posts are trying to CONVERT others. "Debating" and "converting" are futile concepts at the primary level, where adherents are at their most true-believing.
ALL of our candidates are good Dems and we need to respect our fellow DUers' choice of candidates.

4) Want to have a pro-candidate-X thread? Fine. Leave pro-canditate-Y threads alone.

[quinnox]

9. It's important to see the big picture

DU is not as significant as the post makes it seem.

It is a message board, like thousands on the internet. It doesn't and won't have the influence that is implied.

It is for entertainment, not to be taken tooooo seriously.

[Bonobo]

11. Thank you for that. Perhaps you're right.

The internet does tend to warp perceptions...

[quinnox]

14. Yea, I can understand at times

getting caught up in threads at DU, I have done it myself.

[Capn Sunshine]

18. That's for sure

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "what's DU"? at a democratic function.

The importance of this board in the scheme of things is minor at best.

Entertainment value? Priceless!

[salin]

12. or another frame for the question....

Do some duers like playing the role of Lyndon LaRouche?

Selfrigheously claiming way over the top claims... that only a few chorus members will chime in on (ya.. you are SO right...)... but repeating those same preposterous (and often disproven) claims over and over again at every/multiple opportunity? Claims that sound about as bizarre as those of LaRouche (the queen of England is a drug dealer and is behind nazi germany... dontcha know?!)... but have to be repeated... because that one new duer might not have yet been exposed... and this information will reshape that one duer's entire view on the world/campaign... Must.. not... be... detered....

{/sarcasm}

[oasis]

13. Thanks for your intelligent plea fo sanity. I hope this thread survives.

[rucky]

15. Vitrol's on sale for $1.99/gal at Wal-Mart

too tempting to pass up.

Seriously, tho... some random thoughts:

There's a sense of urgency & desparation that underlys this election. People have thought long and hard about it, and many have come to certain conclusions that they have solidified as THE solution. Of course alot of this is expressed through attachments to candidates, and inappropriately through "vitrol". But we're ALL in battle mode & have plenty of steam to blow off.

By next summer, most of us who are still here will be ABB - and behind our nominee. Until then, there are individuals who are absolutely convinced that if Candidate X gets the nod, and Candidate Y does not, that will be our undoing. It's sort of a way to hedge your bets. On one hand, if Bush wins, people can say "I told you we should've supported Candidate Y"... or be silent & eat crow if it was their guy who got the nod & lost. Then there's the sweet, sweet "I told you so," if your guy wins and beats Bush. I don't live for that stuff like some people do, but there's always the temptation.

We're all preparing for that crushing & defeating possibility of a Bush win in the backs of our minds. And we're putting our offensive and defensive strategys up for debate now, so when the big day comes, we can all feel like we played a part in a victory... or didn't play a part in a defeat.

[Cleita]

16. Some posters like to push other DU'ers buttons.

Any post that begins with a negative comment about any candidate is exactly this kind of flame bait. I am suspicious about the source at times, even if the poster has a post count of over a thousand. Some bash all the candidates and they lie about them, so it makes me believe that they could be closet freepers or just plain trolls. The best thing to do is either ignore them or get them to post their sources to back their claims.

I personally have decided not to bash any candidate. My preference is quite visible in my signature, but I see no reason to bash any of the other candidates as I will end up voting for that person if he wins the primaries.

[EarlG]

17. I've seen a line tossed around a lot recently

Which is that the people who support Candidate X are doing so because they WANT Bush to be re-elected.

I believe nothing could be further from the truth. To me, the problem stems from the amount of utter dislike that people on this board feel towards Bush. Ironically, it's something that most of us share.

What's happening is people are worried that a candidate they don't support is going to lose to Bush. Because of our intense worries about a second Bush term, people are starting to get a little panicky about candidates that they perceive to be a losing option.

It is natural to want to support the candidate which you feel will be the strongest chance to beat Bush. In a pressure-cooker environment like DU, it's not unexpected that the rhetoric against candidates who you perceive as weak will reach intense levels, because none of us wants to see Bush in the White House for another four years.

But I think what we need to re-focus on is that no matter who the eventual nominee is, they deserve ALL of our support once they are chosen. I can't tell you who is going to be a stronger or weaker candidate agaisnt Bush at this point, but I know that at the end of the day the nominee is going to get my full support.

I think what everyone needs to remember is that we are all on the same side here. If you want to put all your eggs in one basket at this early stage in the campaign, that's your prerogative of course - but remember that the real battle hasn't even started yet.

Nobody here wants to see Bush win a second term, and that's the root cause of these arguments. Sometimes it's a good idea to take a deep breath and remember that.

[Bonobo]

20. Hear Hear!

:yourock:

I love your sig line.

[Bonobo]

21. Ooops, I meant to address that to #16

n/t

[democratreformed]

19. I really have never understood this either.

To me, it has always seemed like the supporter of Candidate X were saying to themselves "Oh, the supporters of Candidate Y are beginning to feel to good. We'd better go ruin their enthusiasm. Oh, no, can't have anyone being enthused about or making any other candidat besides Candidate X look good."

Hey, I have spent many days since I became involved in this feeling downright depressed because of what I have seen on here and other places.

[Scott Lee]

22. The most ominous thing for me is the form of these attacks

They echo, with eerie familiarity, the tactics used by rightwingers in several political MB's I've visited with in the past. So we have a problem here either way, if A) rightwing nastiness has sunken into our culture so thoroughly that we're all doing it now, or B) these are rightist infiltrators doing one helluvah job at disruption.

I am a Dean supporter, but could also go with Clark if he's the nominee. But I must say my support has hardened for Dean with every empty, hatefilled, ridiculous attack on Dean that surfaces.